Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

FIJI (GIFT)

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that I will give directions that there be presented on behalf of your House a gift of a Clerk's Table to the House of Representatives of Fiji, and assuring me that your House will make good the expenses attending the same.

It gave me great pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

VANUATU (GIFT)

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that I will give directions that there be presented on behalf of your House a gift of a Speaker's gavel and desk set to the House of Assembly of Vanuatu, and assuring me that your House will make good the expenses attending the same.

It gave me great pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as follows:

I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport Undertakings and their Employees) (China) Order 1981, The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (India) Order 1981, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mauritius) Order 1981, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Switzerland) Order 1981 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Thailand) Order 1981 be made the form of drafts laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

New Writ

Motion made and Question proposed, That a new writ be issued for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, in the room of Bobby Sands Esq. deceased.—[Mr. D. E. Thomas.]

Mr. Fitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman rising to oppose the motion?

Mr. Fitt: No. I am asking for your direction, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is it within your ambit to accept or reject the motion that has been proposed, or is it for the House to decide? This issue has been well publicised in the past few days in the national newspapers. Have you taken into account, Mr. Speaker, that the emaciated dead or dying body of an IRA hunger striker is a more lethal weapon than an Armalite rifle in the arms of the men of violence?
By accepting the motion now, the House may be condemning hunger strikers and others to death.—[HON. MEMBERS: "This is not a point of order."] Have you taken that fact into account, Mr. Speaker? If the writ is moved, there will be an election in August. The House will not be sitting, so there will be no urgency for a voice to he heard on behalf of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. If the election takes place—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is not a point of order.

Mr. Fitt: I am talking not to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but to you, Mr. Speaker. Have you, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his point of order. I hope that the House will be patient, because the hon. Gentleman is within his rights on a point of order.

Mr. Fitt: This is not the first time that the right hon. Member for Down, South has tried to assume the role of Mr. Speaker.
Have you taken all the factors involved into account, Mr. Speaker? The election will take place in August and the newly elected Member of Parliament will not be able to take his seat. For several years, Members of Parliament who have represented that constituency have not taken their seats. By accepting the motion you are, in effect, saying—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman the respect that I always give to him when he refers to matters in Northern Ireland, as I know the House does, but it is not a point of order on which I can rule. If the motion is unopposed, I will put the question.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Object.

Mr. Speaker: The proceedings stand postponed until after Question Time.

Later—

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Job Release Scheme

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he plans to reduce the male qualifying age under the job release scheme from 64 to 62 years; and if he will make a statement about early retirement in this context.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday. The qualifying age for men will be reduced to 63 in November 1981 and to 62 in February next year.
The question of the pensionable age of men and women in the national insurance scheme is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Hannam: We welcome the Government's measures, announced yesterday, including the changes in the job release scheme to enable elderly workers to retire and to make their jobs available for unemployed young people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this sort of proposal is a more effective long-term solution to unemployment than the shorter-term palliatives of schemes such as the job opportunities programme? Will he give us some idea when we may see a lowering of the general male retirement age to bring it into line with that for women and that in other countries?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. However, I can see no likelihood in the near future of the retirement age for men being lowered to bring it into line with that for women. Experience in a number of countries is to equate the retirement age for both men and women at 65 or, perhaps, as in the United States, to consider putting up the retirement age to 68. We should be in terrible trouble if we were to think that a smaller number of workers could pay for far more elderly and retired workers than hitherto.

Mr. Hardy: Long-term arrangements may be desirable, but is it not necessary that our short—term measures should be more wholehearted and decisive than they appear? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the arrangements announced yesterday will have a significant effect in South Yorkshire, where there are 81,000 people unemployed and only 77 vacancies in careers offices?

Mr. Prior: Yes, I am satisfied that the measures announced yesterday will have an effect, but we still face extremely serious prospects. The more we can do to help young people to obtain work and those reaching retirement age to retire early, the better it will be for those who must work.

Yorkshire and Humberside

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs in Yorkshire and Humberside are dependent on the temporary short-time working subsidy.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): In June 1981, 45,576 potentially

redundant jobs in the Yorkshire and Humberside region were included in claims that were forwarded for payment under the temporary short-time working compensation scheme.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that in Sheffield alone 16,000 jobs are dependent on the scheme? Is that not an appalling indictment of the Government's economic policy? Can the Minister give an assurance that for as long as the Prime Minister continues with her present grotesque management of the economy this subsidy will be retained unaltered so that thousands of jobs are not lost unnecessarily?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware of the figures for unemployment is Sheffield, because the hon. Gentleman came to see me about another problem and made that point. He will be aware that just over 10,000 people in the Sheffield and Woodhouse employment office area are covered by the scheme. He will also be aware that the scheme is open until 31 March next year.

Mr. Harold Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that for many thousands of workers in South Yorkshire and elsewhere the limited nature of the scheme means that the benefit is now about to expire and, thus, is likely to precipitate a further significant rise in the number of unemployed, unless the scheme can in some way be extended? Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that it was intended as a temporary stop-gap pending the introduction of the more generous and ambitious scheme that was dropped by the Government when they took office? Does he recall that it was introduced because the EEC objected to the temporary employment subsidy, which was its precursor, which had characteristics in line with the £15 job subsidy announced yesterday? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the EEC has now cleared the proposals for the £15 subsidy for young people?

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the scheme was extended from six months to nine months and that it is reviewed. He will be further aware that the intention of the scheme is not to subsidise a job more than once. The EEC is aware of the new subsidy because it has been informed about it.

Community Industry Units

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans for further support for community industry units.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): For 1981–82 the number of available places on the community industry scheme is being increased by 1,000, bringing the national complement to a total of 7,000 places. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend announced further measures to help the unemployed, and I would expect community industry to continue to play its part in helping young people.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the scheme has three merits: first, that its cost is equal to or less than the better known youth opportunities programme; secondly, that it caters for young people most in need; and, thirdly, that the work is connected especially with community projects? In view of that, and if he agrees, will the Minister undertake that any proper applications for an extension of the scheme will be granted as part of the Government's recent proposals?

Mr. Waddington: The Government agree that this scheme fulfils a most important function. The extent to which it can be extended will be considered when all the various special measures to reduce unemployment are considered.

Industrial Training

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when next he expects to have discussions with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission about industrial training.

Mr. Prior: I have no immediate plans to do so, but I regularly meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss issues of mutual concern, including industrial training.

Mr. Knox: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman will he emphasise the importance of the new industrial training package announced yesterday for ensuring that the training will be for the skills that will be needed in the future, so that when the upturn in the economy take; place it will not be held back by the constraint of lack of skilled labour, as has so often happened in the past?

Mr. Prior: I think that my hon. Friend is correct. We are trying to improve the youth opportunities programme so that it contains a greater element of training and more off-the-job training. The purpose of the new training initiative is to ensure that we have the skilled labour available as and when it is required.

Mr. Sever: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is now a dire need for young people to be trained effectively, particularly in engineering, where the heavy engineering skills are being lost in cities such as Birmingham, if we are to have the promised industrial recovery? Is the Secretary of State aware that that will not be achieved unless young people have adequate training? Will he ask the MSC to do everything possible to increase its programmes?

Mr. Prior: Yes. The MSC is doing everything possible. Recently, it asked the Government for an additional £20 million to aid apprenticeships over the next two years. That is in addition to the £30 million a year that we are already providing, making a total of £40 million for each of the next two years. The youth opportunities programme and what will flow from the new training initiatives are of vital importance.

Mr. Scott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that once he has received the sectoral review of the Manpower Services Commission on the future of the industrial training boards, it will be important for the morale of those employed by the boards and for industry generally that he announces his decision as soon as possible?

Mr. Prior: Yes. We need to get on with that and to remove uncertainty as soon as we can. I hope to be able to make a statement to Parliament soon after our return in the new Session.

Mr. Penhaligon: Does the Secretary of State agree that if there is an upturn in the economy and the current amount of training in engineering and similar industries is maintained, the recovery is bound to be strangled virtually at birth by an overwhelming lack of skilled personnel?

Mr. Prior: No, I do not accept that. The skills have not suddenly disappeard from this country in the past two years. We are training enormous numbers of people. The Manpower Services Commission's report and consultations on the future of industrial training boards will be published on Thursday.

Mr. Emery: In the discussions with Sir Richard O'Brien will my right hon. Friend try to find ways of encouraging a greater number of acceptances of apprenticeships in industry and how to remove some of the restrictive practices that unions still operate towards apprenticeships? Will he explain the amount of money that can be paid to an employee under the new scheme to encourage employers to take on apprentices?

Mr. Prior: The Government are aiding a great number of first-year apprenticeships. The importance that my hon. Friend attaches to moving away from apprenticeships based on years to apprenticeships based on reaching a standard is coming through strongly in the new training initiative. It is supported by both employers and trade unions at national level. We require a little support from the House to ensure that it is also supported at local level.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the decisions that he proposes to take on the MSC sectoral review will not be taken during the recess and that he will make a statement to the House before he takes action? May we assume that after yesterday's speech by the Prime Minister the funding difficulties connected with the initiatives for training are now ended?

Mr. Prior: I have already said that the MSC report will be published on Thursday. Further consultations will take place in the summer. I shall make a statement to the House in the new Session of Parliament about the Government 's decisions on the issue.
There will always be shortages of resources available for training. All I can say is that the Government are playing their part and that they hope that industry, which must take the major role, will play its part.

Pre-hearing Assessments

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications for pre-hearing assessments there have been since their introduction; how many such applications have been granted; and of those granted how many have been disposed of before going on to a full industrial tribunal.

Mr. Waddington: From l October 1980 to 30 April 1981, 927 pre-hearing assessments were called, of which 413 were on the application of a party. No information is available on the number of applications refused. 518 of the 927 cases were disposed of before going to a full tribunal hearing.

Mr. Janner: Is it not clear that the biggest deterrent to the bringing of unfair dismissal claims is that people know that once they have brought such claims they are unlikely ever to get another job?

Mr. Waddington: I do not think that is true. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that when a person has brought an unfair dismissal claim against one employer, he finds difficulty getting employment with another. I have given the hon. and learned Gentleman the figures that


he wanted. The presidents of the industrial tribunals are pleased with the way that the pre-hearing assessments are working.

London

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons under 18 years are currently unemployed in the London area; and how many of these are black.

Mr. Peter Morrison: At 9 April, the number of people under 18 years of age registered as unemployed in Greater London was 15,163. The number of black people included in this figure is not available. However, on 12 February, the latest date for which information is available, there were about 2,600 unemployed young people who were born in, or whose parent or parents were born in, the new Commonwealth and Pakistan.

Mr. Dubs: Given the Secretary of State's statement many months ago about an expansion in the youth opportunities programme, can the Minister say why the 15,000 unemployed young people have not been offered YOP places? Is it because there is a lack of money to finance the scheme or is it that not enough suitable employers can be found to provide the places?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday announced an expansion of the youth opportunities programme. I do not have at my fingertips the number of young school leavers who were not taken up by the YOP scheme last year. The numbers would be small. The figure for the country as a whole was about 5,000. This year our Christmas commitment remains.

Mr. Neubert: Would it not be apposite, when people express concern about unemployment in London, to point out that the so-called "capital" project—a computer system to facilitate the placing of people in jobs through employment offices throughout London—had to be abandoned because of union resistance?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend and others have written to me about that matter. It is fair to say that the jobcentres do everything that they possibly can to place young unemployed people in jobs.

Mr. Russell Kerr: In view of the troubles on the colour front in London will the Minister tell the House when the figures will be properly delineated so that we can tell how many blacks are unemployed?

Mr. Fell: That is racialism.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) is a regular attender at Question Time and often puts questions to my right hon. and hon. Friends. The figures are updated and published at six-monthly intervals.

Mr. Dykes: Is my hon. Friend not concerned that in the outer London boroughs, which are traditionally areas of high employment, there are signs of unduly long-lasting unemployment developing among young people? Is he confident that the new measures will help such areas—in particular, the London borough of Harrow?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware that the situation in the outer London boroughs has deteriorated somewhat. I am confident that the measures announced yesterday by the Prime Minister will work.

Disabled Persons

Mr. John Grant: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what advice he has received from the Manpower Services Commission about the quota system for the employment of disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: I apologise for the rather long reply.
The Manpower Services Commission published the report of its review of the quota scheme on 23 July. The report reviews a number of possible approaches, including variants of the existing scheme, and recommends its replacement with a statutory duty on employers in respect of the recruitment, retention and career development of disabled people, linked to a code of practice.
The Commission's proposals contain a number of fresh ideas and would represent a significant change of approach on this important subject compared with existing arrangements. As I indicated in reply to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North-East (Mrs. Short), the Government will therefore give interested organisations and individuals until the end of the year to comment on the Commission's proposals before coming to any decisions.

Mr. Grant: Does the Secretary of State recognise that in view of the savage cuts in the MSC's budget it is difficult to have any confidence that the Government will make sufficient resources available to improve the existing scheme or to make any new scheme effective? The Secretary of State said that there will be consultation. Can he assure the House that, before he comes to the House with any legislative proposals, it will be possible to have a debate on the matter?

Mr. Prior: I shall refer the latter question to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I should have thought that the answer must be "Yes." We have been extremely careful to ensure that help for the disabled is not cut.
As to the savage cuts in the Manpower Services Commission's budget, I should point out that, on the youth opportunities programme alone, in the coming year we shall be spending between £750 million and £800 million.

Mr. Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the organisations representing disabled persons are opposed to the abolition of the quota system? Will he examine more closely the possibility of strengthening the register for disabled people instead of abolishing a system which could be made to work more effectively, as it does in Germany?

Mr. Prior: There are mixed views on the matter. That is one of the reasons why a further period of consultation is necessary before asking the House to discuss the matter or the Government to make up their minds.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the view of many specialists, unemployment among disabled people who are actively seeking work is now effectively twice as high as for people generally and that it is as high as 80 per cent. in some parts of the United Kingdom? In reminding the right hon. Gentleman that


unemployment for a disabled person is a double handicap that often leads to double despair, may I urge him not only to consult organisations representing disabled people but to be guided by their advice?

Mr. Prior: I always listen carefully to all that is said to me. The right hon. Gentleman's figures for unemployment among disabled people are not correct. The figure—which I agree is far too high—is 15·7 per cent. compared with 10·5 per cent. for the nation as a whole.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that any weakening in the quota provision during the International Year of Disabled People would be regarded as wholly unacceptable? Is he further aware that there is a fear that the pressure on the Manpower Services Commission in this regard comes from people who want to employ fewer disabled people and that any new proposals by the MSC will therefore be weaker? Will he examine the possibility of ensuring that there is riot only a proper sanction but a carrot in the form of financial help to employers who employ disabled people?

Mr. Prior: All these matters are relevant. Many of the points were raised during the consultation undertaken by the Manpower Services Commission. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will consider carefully what the commission says in its report because many of these points are fully discussed.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures.

Mr. Prior: The unemployment figures announced by my Department last week are a cause for deep concern. We are continuing to do all we can to help those worst affected by unemployment, particularly young people. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced to the House yesterday the additional measures the Government are taking.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the appalling economic policies that have brought about this massive increase in unemployment? The increase amounts to over 183 per cent. in my constituency since the Tories came to power two years ago. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the crisis measures announced yesterday will have only a marginal effect on this appalling position? Will he say when the entrepeneurs, who received all the tax concessions when the Government came to office, are to provide the proper jobs promised by the Government and by the Conservatives so glibly during the 1979 election?

Mr. Prior: I acknowledge the seriousness of the problems of unemployment that have been coming to this country for the last 20 years. I have acknowledged on more than one occasion that everyone has a share of responsibility, including unions, management and Governments of all political parties. Hon. Members would do better to look at the underlying causes of unemployment rather than indulge in the sort of statement made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lyell: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the problems of youth unemployment present an opportunity for his Department to encourage trade unions and

management to get together to agree radical solutions and changes in our present system of transition from school to work and of training and apprenticeships? Will not he agree that if such encouragement requires the expenditure of more money, as it will, such expenditure is likely to prove very cost-effective?

Mr. Prior: I do not think that there is any doubt that if money is needed to bring about a radical change in the vocational preparation of young people after they leave school and also to improve the situation in the years before they leave school the Government will play their full part in bringing this about. It underlines much of our bad economic performance over the last 20 years that we have a worse record in training young people than any other advanced society.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what further increase has to occur in the already horrifying figures of unemployment before this insensitive Government decide to reflate and to cut unemployment.

Mr. Prior: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House, although I do not welcome his question. He seems to be getting back into his old ways only too quickly.

Mr. Bulmer: Which does my right hon. Friend believe to be the greatest threat to jobs in the public sector—the behaviour of Labour councillors like Mr. Livingstone, withdrawal from the Common Market, or the refusal of some trade union negotiators to see the link between wage increases unjustified by productivity and unemployment?

Mr. Prior: I do not wish to compare them. They can be equally damaging. I respect enormously, however, those trade union leaders who have negotiated sensible settlements in the past year. That should not be forgotten. I await the Opposition's views on Mr. Livingstone. I hope that they will have the courage to give them.

Mr. Varley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that on the basis of Government policies the Manpower Services Commission estimates that by 1983 two-thirds of those under 18 at that time will be without a proper job? Will not he agree that if this happens the scale of the disaster will be devastating? Should not the Secretary of State, instead of going along with some of his colleagues in putting people out of work, be providing jobs and so contributing towards social cohesion and harmony? Is he further aware that the Opposition regard the measures announced by the Prime Minister yesterday as wholly inadequate to deal with a most serious problem afflicting the nation, namely, youth unemployment?

Mr. Prior: If ever there was an inadequate response to the serious problems of unemployment it was the speech of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I ant disappointed that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) has not replied to the challenge that I issued on Mr. Livingstone. Of course, it would be better if real, proper jobs could be provided for all young people. That is our intention. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] One of the ways in which we can help towards that situation is to see that they are better trained to take jobs.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity, which, if I had my way, would be tomorrow.

Training Centres

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present number of Government training centres in England and Wales; and what was the number on 1 May 1979.

Mr. Peter Morrison: There are at present 60 skill-centres and 21 annexes in England and Wales. On 1 May 1979, there were 60 skillcentres and 29 annexes.

Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that he has given a most deplorable reply? Does he agree that as a result of the massive increase in unemployment under the Government there should also have occurred a massive extension of Government training centres, which would have led to meaningful training being given to unemployed people and would have provided them in time with the opportunity to obtain proper jobs? When are the Government intending to tackle the issue? When will they stop the kind of camouflage measures announced yesterday?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that simply to spend one's way out of trouble will create greater trouble. The skillcentre programme was agreed with the Manpower Services Commission, which includes TUC commissioners as well as CBI commissioners.

Mr. Forman: While the majority responsibility for industrial and commercial training must remain with the private sector, may I ask my hon. Friend to give the House the assurance that the next priority to which his Department will turn its attention urgently is the plight of the long-term unemployed—those who have been unemployed for over six-months or, in some cases, over 12 months, since the forecasts given by the Manpower Services Commission have been alarmingly high?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend. The issue of the long-term unemployed is a matter to which we in the Department and those in the Manpower Services Commission devote our attention. That is why we have the community enterprise programme.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the fact that there must be a great deal more industrial training, particularly for young people, what steps have the Government taken to enter into serious discussion with the Trades Union Congress and the trade unions in order to reach an amicable agreement to bring about the expansion that is required at the earliest moment?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the apprenticeship programme is important for young school leavers. That is why the Government lay great store by the new training initiative published by the Manpower Services Commission, together with the TUC commissioners concerned.

Dr. Hampson: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the trade associations that thought that they could replace industrial training boards now seem unwilling to take part in new training initiatives? Will he assure the House that before any ITBs are abolished there will be means incorporated in the alternative arrangements to ensure that new training initiatives can be carried out effectively?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that the trade associations make a constructive

approach to the new training initiative. Anything that he or I can do to make sure that this is the case will be a worthwhile exercise.

Mr. Harold Walker: Will the Government stop misleading the House and the country about their attitude and intentions towards industrial training? Their words suggest that they are backing industrial training, but between now and 1984 they will cut Government support for industrial training by £77·5 million. The training opportunities programme provided for nearly 100,000 trainees in 1978, but this year it is likely to make provision for fewer than 60,000. Why do not the Government come clean?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman gets his figure of £77·5 million. I am sure that he listened to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday. A large part of her statement was devoted to training and industrial training.

Young Persons

Mr. Alexander: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will institute a scheme for trained young people who still cannot get employment after qualifying whereby their unemployment benefit is paid to an employer who agrees to take them on for a period.

Mr. Prior: I refer my hon. Friend to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday. We intend to introduce a subsidy scheme to benefit young people, details of which will be announced as soon as possible.

Mr. Alexander: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for her initiatives. Does my right hon. Friend agree that many skilled young people cannot get employment because they do not have experience and employers will not take them on? Would not my suggestion give them that experience? Would it not take them off the dole queues at the same time? Would not that be achieved at no cost to the Exchequer?

Mr. Prior: I think that there would be some cost to the Exchequer. It is a modified form of my hon. Friend's scheme that the Prime Minister announced yesterday. We are giving further consideration to the Layard proposals and the Reading proposals. There are certain disadvantages in the proposals that have to be overcome.

Mr. Skinner: The Prime Minister announced a new Speenhamland system yesterday that turns on a maximum wage of £40 a week, of which the Government will pay £15. What guarantees are there that will prevent an unscrupulous set of employers from setting on young people in receipt of wages of less than £40 a week and at some later stage sacking some adults?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman had better wait for the details of the scheme.

Consett and Stanley

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of unemployment in the Consett and Stanley travel-to-work area.

Mr. Waddington: At 9 July, the provisional rate of unemployment in the Consett travel-to-work area, which includes Stanley, was 26·6 per cent.

Mr. Watkins: Is the Minister aware that that is one of the highest unemployment rates in the entire United Kingdom and that it includes almost 600 school leavers, for whom there are only three jobs available? Can we expect any improvement as a result of the measures announced yesterday?

Mr. Waddington: The principal reason for the very bad figures is the closure of the steelworks in September 1980 with the loss of no fewer than 3,600 jobs. The problems of the steel industry were not created by the Government. I can hold out hope for the hon. Gentleman. I understand that 1,100 former BSC workers have found new jobs or training since the closure of the works. Consett lies in the North-East special development area and the maximum financial assistance is available from the Department of Industry. Some small firms have set up in the area and the business opportunities programme should persuade many more to go to the area.

Youth Opportunities Programme

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to assist young persons who have completed a youth opportunities programme and are unable to find work.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The youth opportunities programme is designed to equip young people for employment. The training content is currently being improved so that participants are better fitted for a wider range of job opportunities.

Mr. Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unhelpful, to say the least, that many of the public service unions are refusing to accept youth opportunities candidates into the public service? Is he making any progress in persuading the unions to accept such candidates? In le long run the scheme might bring into the public service for permanent employment many young people who, having had experience in the service, might wish to join it.

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be far more profitable for the public service unions and for young school leavers if the unions took a more positive attitude towards the youth opportunities programme.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the growing discontent among trainees on the youth opportunities programme with the level of the allowance that is paid to them, which has remained the same for over 18 months? It is an allowance that compares unfavourably with the amount that is made available to those who are unemployed. What action does he propose taking to increase the allowance?

Mr. Morrison: At least 10,000 young people are entering the scheme every week. The growing discontent to which the hon. Gentleman refers cannot be as bad as all that. However, the difference between the allowance and unemployment benefit is £8·25. My right hon. Friend has been saying for some time that he is prepared to review the £23 allowance.

Mr. Foulkes: When?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Bedfordshire

Mr. Madel: asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Bedfordshire.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Madel: The new employment and training measures will help industry in Bedfordshire, but is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Labour and Liberal parties on the county council succeed in imposing a supplementary rate this autumn domestic and industrial ratepayers will be hurt and employment prospects in Bedfordshire will be severely hampered?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. However much councils may wish to in local authorities, they should not impose rates that are too high for their industry and commerce to bear. It is industry and commerce that provide the jobs. Higher rates can mean more unemployment. I hope that my hon. Friend's council will take that into account when considering what to do.

King Edward (Aberdeenshire)

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to King Edward in the East Aberdeenshire constituency.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. McQuarrie: I regret that my right hon. Friend is unable to visit King Edward in my constituency. She would have been most welcome. However, she will be aware that a much more serious problem is affecting my constituency and others. I refer to the decision yesterday taken by the European Commission on herring quotas. I do not wish to pre-empt the statement that will be made later this afternoon. However, is my right hon. Friend able to give the House an assurance that the herring stocks in British waters will be fully protected at all times, in the interests of the British herring fisheries industry?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for adequate protection of herring stocks. I understand that arrangements have been made for reports on herring catches. I understand that the arrangements involve making full reports twice weekly. The United Kingdom fisheries protection services will increase their surveillance of herring fisheries. We intend to close the fisheries when a scientifically recommended total allowable catch has been taken.

Engagements

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 July.

The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including the President of Cyprus, the Prime Minister of Barbados and Mr. Rajiv Ghandi. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having a meeting later today with the President of the Federal Republic of Germany. This evening I shall attend a supper given by Her Majesty the Queen on the eve of the marriage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to the Lady Diana Spencer.

Mr. Shepherd: Following the speech made yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are carrying out a review of all wages councils? Is she aware that many of my hon. Friends and I believe that their activities can be an obstacle towards making jobs available, and that without them there could be fuller employment?

The Prime Minister: We have no immediate plans for legislation on wages councils. The minimum wages that most councils prescribe for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds vary from about £32 to £50. We hope that the wages councils will take into account the statement that was made yesterday about help for those who are employed and in receipt of a wage of less than £40, so that they may take the same approach as the Government. It is vital to get more young people into jobs.

Mr. Foot: When the Cabinet had before it the proposals that the right hon. Lady announced yesterday, had it also before it the unpublished forecasts of the Manpower Services Commission, which are reported in The Times today and which predict that for the next 30 months there will be an increase in unemployment, including, at the end of that period, over 1 million who have been unemployed for a year? Did the Cabinet have those forecasts before it? Does the right hon. Lady agree with them? Does not she think that it would have been a good idea to report the matter to the House?

The Prime Minister: We had no new forecasts before us. If there are any such forecasts from the Manpower Services Commission—I saw the report in The Times—I do not know of their existence. We wished to take the measures that we took and reported to the House yesterday because we wanted to do everything possible to reduce unemployment among young people and to help older people who are without jobs. We thought that the best way to do that was to proceed, as we said, with the extension of the job release scheme.

Mr. Foot: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that those figures are extremely serious? Will she report to the House on them before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess? The right hon. Lady has not told us whether she has considered those reports. It is a most serious forecast from the commission about unemployment over the next two or three years. When will the right hon. Lady face the situation?

The Prime Minister: I understand, and I tried to point out to the right hon. Gentleman, that there are no new forecasts. We are naturally concerned about the present situation and about the fact that more school leavers will come on to the register. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should also take into account the fact that some hon. Gentlemen behind him spoke in the debate yesterday and said that they are just as concerned as we are about the present position. They had no immediate solutions.

Mr. Peyton: Does my right hon. Friend recall the last occasion on which the Leader of the Opposition did something other than rend his garments like a rather untidy Old Testament prophet, and actually make a Constructive suggestion?

The Prime Minister: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman does or does not do, we believe in tackling the problem in two ways. We try to tackle the problem of

unemployment at its root by increasing competitiveness and getting more jobs. In the meantime, in the shorter term, we must try to relieve hardship and suffering, as we said yesterday.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the wages councils cover about 10 per cent. of employment, their abolition would probably do more for employment, even than the useful measures that she announced yesterday?

The Prime Minister: I said earlier that we have no immediate plans for legislation on wages councils. I hope that they will take into account the measures that we proposed yesterday and the fact that many of us are very concerned to get more young people into employment, and also to provide employment for older people, by ensuring that firms become competitive. That must mean that people price themselves into jobs, because that is the only way to long and lasting full employment.

Mr. Straw: How much longer will the Prime Minister tolerate the open criticism and rebellion against her policies by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

The Prime Minister: The Minister of Agriculture is quite capable of answering for himself.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the Government's highly relevant and important decision to establish 80 new centres of information technology? An unfortunate and inaccurate impression exists, particularly in the Portsmouth and Havant area, that the Government are not greatly concerned about the consequences of the dockyard closure. Will she therefore consider most carefully establishing one such centre in that area?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly communicate what my hon. Friend has said to the Minister for Industry and Information Technology. On the general point, we are anxious that there will be sufficient properly trained people in this country for the new technology, because that is the kind of industry that this country must have if we are to increase the standard of living and the prosperity of our people.

Mr. Sheerman: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Prime Minister explain how she can continue in office presiding over an Administration that are now raising £6 billion from North Seal oil revenues and frittering it away on £8¾ billion on the dole queues?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has over-assessed the amount that goes on unemployment and social security benefits. My recollection—I speak from memory—is that the sum paid out in unemployment and social security benefits for the first three months this year was about £750 million. It is much easier to pose the problem than it is to provide permanent, good jobs for our people. There is only one way to do that, and it is the way that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to follow. May I quote:
There is in fact only one way to stop our industrial decline. We must prevent our unit costs from rising so much faster than


our competitors. By far the best way to reduce unit costs is to increase productivity by increasing output per head. Unfortunately, this can be achieved only on the shop floor of the individual firm There is no general policy through which the Government can perform the miracle".
So said the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in a speech that he made in September 1979.

Mr. Forman: Did my right hon. Friend notice during the course of, yesterday's debate that when the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was asked about the cost of the spendthrift programme put forward by the Leader of the Opposition earlier in the afternoon, he admitted that the programme had not been costed? Is that a sensible way for Her Majesty's official Opposition to embark on policy-making?

The Prime Minister: The answer is "No, Sir", but it is the way that we have come to expect from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Prime Minister tell us today, and preferably now, why one major aspect of her Government's policy—of any Government policy—was not mentioned in her speech yesterday, and that is regional policy? Is it because it is such a monumental flop? In the Northern region last week unemployment rose to 15·6 per cent., which is the highest rate in the United Kingdom. Is she aware that it has risen every month since her Government came to power? What does she intend to do about it? Will she do something new to change the policies that she repeatedly told us yesterday were so successful?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. Grants under regional policy were included in the £1 billion which at present goes largely to the private sector.

Dr. Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who for many years have visited Keswick were shattered by what happened to the town and its theatre? Does not she believe, despite the superb effort by the police, that the arrest of 14 is barely a deterrent, and that many of those roving gangs will continue to pose a threat to helpless communities unless they are told that their bikes will be impounded if they go on in this way?

The Prime Minister: If my memory is correct, I understand that those young people were fined £1,000 each by the magistrates' court. Doubtless, the magistrates regarded that as a deterrent sentence. We must leave law and order to the police, and the law to the magistrates.

Mr. Home Robertson: In view of the enormous sacrifices that have been made by Scottish fishermen since 1977 to conserve herring stocks, and in view of the notorious inaccuracies in the reporting process by foreign

fleets, will the Prime Minister take a leaf out of the Icelandic book and take all means at the Government's disposal to protect Scotland's herring industry?

The Prime Minister: I answered a question on that subject earlier this afternoon. The surveillance by the United Kingdom fisheries protection fleet will be increased. The fisheries catches will be reported twice a week. We intend to close the fishery when the scientifically recommended total allowable catch is taken.

Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm today that before we come back in October Ministers will have published specific proposals to defend commercial and domestic ratepayers against the depredations of the likes of Mr. Ken Livingstone and his grizzly friends throughout the country?

The Prime Minister: It is quite clear that some defence is needed against the reported activities of Mr. Ken Livingstone. I believe that the consultative document will have been published by that time. I shall endeavour to see that it is done.

Mr. Grimond: Has the Prime Minister noticed that the building industry is forecasting a still further increase in unused resources? Should we not therefore distinguish more sharply between current and capital expenditure? While keeping current expenditure under strict control, has not the time come to encourage productive investment?

The Prime Minister: A good deal of current expenditure is spent on maintenance, which affects the building industry. We have encouraged capital expenditure by a number of measures. We have increased the capital allowances on industrial buildings from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent., with the specific intent of helping industry and increasing the amount of work available to the construction industry. The rate of development land tax has been lowered to a single figure of 60 per cent.—a further help to the construction industry. The capital programme of 30 new town development corporations will cost £275 million this year. Two nuclear power stations are being constructed. There is a heavy hospital building programme and the roads programme is costing more than £900 million. All that is for the building and construction industry.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is to be sacked, can we be notified to that effect before we rise for the Summer Recess, in view of what happened during the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Speaker: Whoever that is a question for, it is certainly not for me.

European Community (Council of Fisheries Ministers' Meeting)

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I wish to make a statement about the Council of Fisheries Ministers' meeting which took place yesterday.
Under the Presidency of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Brussels yesterday.
The main issue before the Council was the reopening of the herring fisheries at the West of Scotland and in the southern North Sea, as recommended by the scientists. The Council had before it a Commission proposal which, in the most important area, that of the West of Scotland fishery, would allocate to the United Kingdom 67 per cent. of the total EEC catch. However, after prolonged discussion it was not possible to reach an agreement on those proposals, even on an interim basis, because of objections from four member States—Belgium, Denmark, France and Ireland.
In those circumstances, I insisted on the vital necessity of the Commission effectively monitoring the fishery to ensure that the total allowable catch recommended by the scientists would not be exceeded. Agreement was reached that catch reports should be made twice weekly to the Commission by the member countries fishing in the area concerned. The information obtained will be circulated to member States so that we will be able to monitor the situation and ensure that the fishery is closed as soon as the proposed total allowable catch has been taken. We are arranging for the surveillance of the area involved by both ships and aircraft to be intensified.
I am glad to report that we have persuaded the Commission to ban until the end of November imports of cod fillets into the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic at prices below the Community reference price, thereby eliminating imports at unduly low prices. That is an important step towards the more effective operation of the marketing system. It will also make it easier to take action in future to ensure the proper observation of the reference prices.
The next Council will take place at the end of September, when it is agreed that an attempt will be made to negotiate a comprehensive fishing policy.

Mr. Roy Mason: I am sure that the House will be grateful to the Minister for that progress reoort. It is pleasing to note that some progress has been made on the price control of cod fillets. On the main issue of the lifting of the herring ban, will the Minister answer the charge by the leader of the Scottish Fishing Federation, Gilbert Buchan, that the decision has created a disastrous position and that, because of the Commission's dictatorial attitude, the herring stocks will soon be destroyed?
The power of the Commission is of major constitutional and legal importance. It has trampled roughshod over the advice of the United Kingdom chairman and that of the Council of Ministers. It has declared not only that the herring ban should be lifted but that the Commission's figures for total allowable catches should be forced upon national States. Is not the Minister aware that the

Commission ruling means that there will be a free-for-all in the herring zones? Further, there will not be the controlled opening that was desired by the Scottish and other British fishermen. How will the Commission, which made the decision, stop over-fishing by national fleets? How does the Commission answer the charge that the past four years of conservation will be ruined and that the sacrifices made by our fishermen will be in vain?
Above all, did not the Commission provocatively defy the chairman and the Fisheries Council? Is not that a most serious position? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the legal position and the power of the Commission vis-á-vis the Government?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming what is happening in relation to markets. On the fundamental question of the opening of the herring fishery, I made it absolutely clear at the Council of Ministers yesterday that what happened was not in the best interests of the orderly opening of the fishery. However, given that we had the scientific advice that the fishery should be opened, and therefore must be opened on that basis which is the same as for other fisheries, our objective was to ensure that the fishery should be conducted in the most orderly way possible.
It is true that the leader of the Scottish industry has expressed considerable concern about that matter. However, it is wrong to exaggerate the position. We have taken considerable steps to ensure that the fishery is conducted in an orderly fashion. We have instituted a system of monitoring which is already agreed, which has the full power of law in the Community, and which the Commission has said it will enforce—if need be using the power of the courts.
We are increasing surveillance by both aircraft and surface craft in the area of the fishery to ensure that the rules are observed. Once the total allowable catch is reached, the fishery can be closed. In that way we shall avoid the over-fishing to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of the legal competence of the Commission. It made a declaration that it believed it had the power and the legal competence to enforce what it was doing. We and a number of other member States questioned that competence and, even more significant, it was questioned by the legal services of the Council of Ministers. In the event of the fishery requiring to be shut, as it will be once the total allowable catch has been reached, it will be within the competence of those member States whose waters are affected to ensure that.

Mr. Mason: Do I understand from the Minister's reply that, despite the fact that the Commission was advised by the chairman of the council and that the British had made their standpoint, the Commission has overruled us and that the Minister is prepared to give way? What is he prepared to do to challenge the Commission's ruling?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman would do well to look at the whole legal background to the issue. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) took national measures. However, when the European Court reached decisions on the measures—conveniently after the right hon. Gentleman had left office—it was found that a number of them were illegal.
The basis of the decision of the European Court was The Hague agreement of 1976. It was signed by the Opposition, who conceded that Commission approval must be sought for national conservation measures and that the residual national rights to take national action would be terminated after certain Community decisions had been taken. That was the millstone which the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and other hon. Members put around the neck of the United Kingdom Government.

Mr. John Silkin: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Silkin. [Interruption.] Order. I am aware that I am calling in succession two Members from the same side. [Horn. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman is Shadow Leader of the House".] I know that he is Shadow Leader of the House. I do not want a private conversation taking place. I shall make up for the fact that I have called two Opposition Members and then say how long questions on this statement will run.

Mr. Silkin: I rose, Mr. Speaker, only because my name had been mentioned. I should happily have been quiet otherwise.
The right hon. Gentleman had better consult his memory, his calendar and his dates. He will find that The Hague agreement was not negotiated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. By agreement, the agreement was due to lapse—

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): What about collective responsibility?

Mr. Silkin: That is true. I am not excusing that, but it is irrelevant to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. That accounts for his ignorance of the subject.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The law is the law. I thoroughly recommend the right hon. Gentleman to read annex 6 of The Hague agreement. Conservative Members in particular know the views of Opposition Members about collective responsibility. I should ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did or did not agree to the action of the right hon. Member for Devonport in relation to The Hague agreement.

Mr. Silkin: I had read annex 6 before the right hon. Gentleman was born. The fact is that the whole of The Hague agreement had no relevance whatsoever to national measures.

Mr. Peter Walker: The right hon. Gentleman did not agree with it.

Mr. Silkin: Of course, I did not agree with it, but, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, collective responsibility is collective responsibility. I agreed with The Hague agreement with the vehemence with which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food supports the Prime Minister.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I took the precaution today of reading the relevant parts of The Hague agreement. I suggest that my memory is more accurate than that of the right hon. Gentleman. It is strange that he hid from the House at that time his attitudes towards this agreement, which was signed on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom and which is the background to the negotiations which my right hon. Friends and I now have to conduct.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow 25 minutes for questions on the statement. hope that hon. Members will be to the point and that we shall have brief answers which are also to the point so that I can call as many hon. Members as possible.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Coming to the present day, after the interesting remembrances of things past., can my right hon. Friend say whether, in present circumstances, the Government have any intention of availing themselves of the rights open to them under the Treaty to test the legality of the Commission's position in the European Court of Justice?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That matter will arise only if the Commission takes action in the way it said it might. What is much more important at present is the orderly conduct of the fishery. We believe that, for the reasons I have given, that is possible.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When is it expected that decisions will be taken and announced on the reopening of the Mull and Mourne fisheries and on the herring fishery in the Irish Sea generally?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The proposals in relation to all the areas mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were included in the scientific recommendations before the Council. Therefore, fishing will take place in those areas later this year. Some seasonal fishing has already started. Fishing in the Mourne will take place at the normal tin-le later this year.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the fishermen in the area concerned, many of whom I represent, regard what has appeared as a spineless surrender and a sell-out of their interests? Is he also aware that the Government are now obliged to stand on overriding national interests, as the French have done on many occasions? There is no confidence in talk about catch reports and monitoring, which proved completely fraudulent last time the fishery was open. If the Government do not protect that fishing with the help of Royal Navy cruisers, the fisheries and fishing communities in the West of Scotland, will be destroyed.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Before the right hon. Gentleman indulges in such rhetoric, I suggest that he consults the leaders of the fishermen, who were present in Brussels yesterday, regarding the conduct of negotiations by my right hon. Friend and myself. I believe that he will find that they are not in sympathy with his remarks. I would have more respect for the right hon. Gentleman's, views if he showed greater interest in the fishing industry than in party politics.

Mr. Iain Sproat: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is tragic for the herring catchers and processors that almost three years of crippling sacrifices could be put at risk by this act of madness by the European Commission and some of our EEC partners? Can he see any grounds for believing that perhaps the lessons of this fiasco will concentrate the mind of the European Commission and bring it towards a speedy settlement of the CFP?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It was possible yesterday for an agreement to have been reached on a much more orderly opening of the fishery. I regret that other countries did not


agree to that. However, given the situation in which we are now placed, I believe in the measures which are available to us so that the sacrifice made by our fishermen in the last three years will not be put at naught and wasted and so that the fishery will be closed when the total allowable catch is reached.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Was it not an act of infantile irresponsibility by the Commission to embark on a free-for-all which it cannot accurately monitor and which it does not have the means of enforcing? How can we now say to fishermen in areas such as Northumberland and the East Coast of Scotland that they cannot catch North Sea herring while there is a free-for-all for boats from all over Europe, including Norway, which are fishing for herring elsewhere in the North Sea?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman normally takes a responsible attitude towards fishery matters. I am surprised that he says that there will be a free-for-all. I have said only that this is a less orderly way of opening the fishery than I would have liked. We already follow these practices for many other of our fisheries. I have not heard the hon. Gentleman use the same phrases for them. I suggest that he reflects on the position before he comments further.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Were the proposals agreed by the Council of Ministers or were they imposed on the Council of Ministers by the Commission? If they were imposed by the Commission and the right hon. Gentleman was unable to veto them, does not that put the whole of our membership of the EEC in a different light?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It does not. The proposals before us were not agreed or imposed. Once the scientific recommendation for the opening of the fishery has been made and considered by the Council of Ministers in relation to every other fishery, it is possible for fishing to take place. What was at question yesterday was the conduct of the fishery once it was open. That is what we negotiated yesterday.

Sir Patrick Wall: Leaving aside the continuous hostile attitude towards the Common Market by certain hon. Members, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on doing his best to preserve the fish stocks in the North Sea? Taking the area as a whole, what proportion of the total allowable catch will be allocated to British fishermen? Is he satisfied that once foreigners have completed their quota they will stop fishing? He will remember what happened in Norway two years ago.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In the main part of the North Sea there is a recommendation of a nil total allowable catch, so no fishing will take place in that area. Only three areas are concerned. The main one is off the North-West of Scotland, where the Commission's proposal for the United Kingdom share was 67 per cent., which reflects our historic record in that area. The total allowable catch is on a smaller scale in the Irish Sea and there is a small catch off the South-West of England and in the southern part of the North Sea.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Whether the Minister calls it a free-for-all or indulges in semantics about a less orderly opening of the fishery, is it not a fact

that it is totally impractical to monitor the number of herring caught from the fishery? How will it be possible for vessels to report twice weekly? That information has to go to member Governments and, from member Governments to the Commission and then the Commission has to circulate other member Governments about what has happened. How long does the right hon. Gentleman think the fishery can stand before it is wiped out? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the proposals are totally disastrous and that the herring will be wiped out before the Government have any idea how many herring have been caught?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman forgets that this system already operates for other fisheries. One current example is the North-East mackerel fishery, which both last year and this year has been conducted on this basis and has been closed when the total allowable catch was reached.

Sir Walter Clegg: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the monitoring of herring fishing in the Irish Sea? Is he aware that, unless at the next meeting to which he referred we make substantial progress towards a common fisheries policy, the industry will want the British Government on their own to start restructuring our own fleet?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Events in Brussels this week have indicated the urgency of obtaining an overall comprehensive common fisheries policy. Dealing on an ad hoc basis such as this is not as satisfactory as achieving an overall policy. I and my right hon. Friends will lose no opportunity to bring home to our colleagues the necessity of that and I hope that we shall be able to do so in the autumn.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: With the appalling consequences of the failure to agree to go ahead without let or hindrance by national Governments, how long does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the herring will survive? In what circumstances will the Government be able to take the Commission to court?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman should not use phrases such as "without let or hindrance". Elements of control are involved—elements in relation to the Commission and elements in relation to our own control and surveillance. Therefore, when the total allowable catch is reached, it will be possible to close the fishery.

Mr. James Johnson: Is not this a typical example of the callous and cynical attitude of our Gallic or Gaullist partners in the EEC? Is not the right hon. Gentleman now helpless? Will he give a pledge that he will do his best to call into any port available anyone who is caught poaching, particularly anyone in French vessels?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to enforce our conservation measures regardless of the nationality of the fishermen. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Denmark, Ireland and Belgium, as well as France, refused to agree. However, it is also significant that other major countries such as Germany and Holland were prepared to agree to the proposals that were before us yesterday.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend refresh his memory about the unanimous report on the British fishing industry of the old Expenditure Committee, and in particular its following recommendations: first, that there should be a ban on transhipment because a limited catch cannot be controlled if it is not landed for checking; secondly, that it is notorious that the French do not attempt to enforce such quotas—there is ample evidence of that; thirdly, that the country in whose 50-mile limit the fishery takes place should be the enforcing and reporting agency? Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that when herring are slaughtered mackerel are subsequently raped?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my hon. Friend knows I have paid particular attention to the recommendations of the Select Committee of which he is a member. He will also know that, although we have not gone as far as the Committee recommended, we have taken powers in the Fisheries Act, which became law a few weeks ago, to control the transhipment of fish and that during the coming mackerel season there will be more effective control of transhipment.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: How on earth will the Commission, the British Government, scientists or anyone else be able to monitor or control herring catches when we all know that huge catches were made during the ban? If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we no longer have the power to enforce national conservation measures to stop what is going on, and that he knew that as a result of The Hague agreement, why did the 1979 Conservative Party manifesto promise national conservation measures and why did not the right hon. Gentleman negotiate a retention of those measures as part of the final settlement?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Not unsurprisingly, the hon. Gentleman glosses over the facts. He will be aware that on several occasions there have been prosecutions for the illegal fishing of herring—as recently as within the last three weeks. Therefore, it is utterly wrong to say that there has been indiscriminate illegal herring fishing. That shows the shallowness of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Given the unsatisfactory background with which my right hon. Friend must cope, will he remind the other Governments in the Council of Ministers that the way in which this policing, in which the Commission has faith, takes place will very much affect the credibility with which any Community policing might be regarded in a future CFP? What arrangements have been made to ensure that the British processing industry will be able to cope with herring catches'?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On my hon. Friend's second point, we will be in touch with all the different representative organisations that have an interest in the herring fishery. I agree with my hon. Friend's first point. I made all these points at yesterday's council meeting, but my hon. Friend has made them rather more eloquently today.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no point in talking about enforcement measures when seized catches are sold back to the person who caught them at about a quarter of their value? Will he now give an undertaking that, whatever agreement is reached on a CFP in

September—if, indeed, one is reached—the Government will not give a solemn undertaking to abide by it until the House has had the opportunity to debate it and form a judgment upon it?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, prior to Council meetings we have given every opportunity to debate fisheries matters. As he knows perfectly well, it is inappropriate to comment on decisions of the courts, but, as he also knows from his membership of the Standing Committee on the Fisheries Bill, the penalties available to the courts are extremely severe.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I congratulate my three right hon. Friends on their brilliant performance in Brussels yesterday in the interests of the British fishing industry. That view was conveyed to me by members of the fishing industry who went to Brussels. Even though they were unsuccessful, it was a brilliant performance. As a large quantity of herring will now come on to the market, will my right hon. Friend ensure that measures are taken to encourage consumers to eat herring to prevent this important species—

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Another brilliant performance.

Mr. McQuarrie: One would expect such a comment from the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that this valuable species will not be used for fish meal at a later date?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I know that my hon. Friend keeps in close touch with the leaders of the fishing industry, not least because of his constituency interest. I hope that he will also educate the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), who does not seem to keep in such close touch. I endorse my hon. Friend's hope that the British public will avail themselves of the opportunity to eat herring. It is one of the best fish available, and I shall be setting my own example by eating it in the coming months.

Mr. John Home Robertson: What proportion of the total allowable catch does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be caught by British fishermen? Does he really believe in catch reports, be they from France, the Netherlands or even Aberdeen?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I have said, the Commission proposal is 67 per cent. I shall do all I can to ensure that British fishermen get their proper share of the fishery.

Mr. Alex Pollock: In the light of the failure of the Council of Ministers to reach agreement and the lack of a veto on the Commission's proposals, does my right hon. Friend accept that a dangerous power vacuum has been exposed in Europe? Does he further accept that if the Commission is entitled to act as it claims there may well be a case for an urgent look at the structure of Community regulations prior to any serious progress towards a CFP?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Obviously we want to examine more closely yesterday's declaration by the Commission. It is significant that not only the United Kingdom but other member States and the legal advisers to the Council of Ministers itself are questioning it. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall take an active part in any discussions on the matter.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Some Opposition Members appreciate the Government's difficult position in the negotiations. The figure of 67 per cent. does not seem unreasonable, but does not the Minister accept that he will have the backing of the whole House in questioning the doubtful legality of the Commission's action on this decision? It is in everyone's interest to get off to a good start at the first attempt to control any species.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I pay particular attention to what he says, because of his practical experience of what was involved in the negotiations. We shall stand up for the interests of the United Kingdom as regards any question about the Commission's legal competence in relation to this matter or anything else. I very much regret that the fishery could not be opened on a more orderly basis. I believe that it was possible, and to some extent the Community has failed in not being able to do that.

Mr. David Myles: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a cautious welcome for his vigorous declaration that this fishery will be properly monitored? Will he assure us that this will be so and that we shall pull out all the stops to ensure that we exercise all possible control?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. British fishermen, and particularly Scottish fishermen, have made a sacrifice over the past three years in order to see the stock recover. In no way will the British Government stand aside and allow over-fishing beyond what the scientists have recommended.

Mr. George Foulkes: What happened to the proposal that the right hon. Gentleman said he would make for the issuing of licences allowing people to fish, in order to protect the traditional interests, particularly of the West Coast Scottish fishermen? Why was not the right hon. Gentleman able to use the veto in the discussions as the matter is of vital interest to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said earlier, he would know that the veto could not be used. I have explained the procedure for opening a fishery—a procedure that was followed by the Labour Government as well as by this Government. My right hon. Friends and I are in close touch with the representatives of the fishermen as to the more precise conduct of this fishery.

Mr. W. Benyon: I appreciate the difficulties, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to get an eventual agreement is by the most rigorous and strong enforcement action? Will he assure the House that every step will be taken to ensure that this is done?

Mr. Buchan-Smith: I have the utmost respect for the ability of the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the fishery protection service of the Department of Agriculture

and Fisheries in Scotland, which have a proven record in protecting our fishing interests. The Government will give them all the support that they can.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Despite what the Minister has said, is it not absolutely clear that a free-for-all is involved here, and that since there are no national quotas, but only a total quota, there is no guarantee that British fishermen on the West Coast of Scotland, for example, will get 67 per cent. or any other percentage?
Did the Council of Ministers agree to the opening of the fishery or not? It is completely unprecedented for any fishery to be reopened without a decision by the Council of Ministers. That decision should not have been taken without the British Minister exercising his veto. If the decision was taken instead by the Commission, against the wishes of Ministers, is this not a serious arrogation of power by the Commission? If the Commission can do that in respect of this fishery without successful legal challenge, what prospect is there of a satisfactory common fisheries policy, when the Commission can impose a policy against the wishes of British Ministers and, indeed, of all Ministers? Is it not essential, not only for this fishery but for our general negotiating position, that the Commission's attempt to exercise power in this matter should be successfully challenged?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge and experience of these matters, should speak as he does. As he should be aware, the legal position is not one of the fishery's being open or closed; it is one of recommendations on an amount of fish to be caught. The amount is changed every year. It changed in the years when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Scottish Office and had responsibility for these matters. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman gets together with his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) to discuss the realities. The right hon. Gentleman does no service to his previous experience in these matters or to the fishing industry by making the exaggerated claims that he does.

Mr. Milan: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the questions that I put to him? The matter has nothing to do with recommendations by scientists or anyone else. The closing and opening of fisheries are matters for the Council of Ministers, not for the scientists or the Commission. As soon as Ministers allow the Commission to make that kind of decision, there is no real control over policy, and the chances of bringing about a common fisheries policy satisfactory from a United Kingdom point of view are shattered.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I said a moment ago, this is not a matter on which any individual country has a veto in the Council of Ministers in relation to the total allowable catch. No amount of words from the right hon. Gentleman can cover the give-away by the Government of whom he was a member, who took away the United Kingdom Government's ability to take national conservation measures on this matter or anything else.

Local Government Audit

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on local government audit in England and Wales.
In its report on the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Public Accounts Committee made recommendations on this subject, among others. The Government's response to the Committee's report as a whole is being published today in a White Paper. Since early legislation on local government audit is proposed, it was thought right to make a separate statement to the House on this.
The Government entirely endorse the PAC's conclusion that the present arrangements for local authority audit need to be improved and that greater attention needs to be given to value-for-money work. In addition, we do not believe that it is right in principle that a local authority should appoint its own auditors. We also wish to see the experience of private sector accountants used in substantially greater measure in local government audit.
The PAC concluded that the Comptroller and Auditor General should assume responsibility for the district audit service. The Government have considered this very carefully but have decided that such an arrangement would be fundamentally inconsistent with the constitutional position of local authorities. Parliament's proper interest in moneys voted as Exchequer grants to local authorities is best pursued through the accountability to Parliament of the Ministers responsible for the payment of those grants.
The Government accordingly propose to introduce early legislation to establish a new Audit Commission, which would be responsible for the audit of local authorities in England and Wales. Its members would be appointed by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries State for the Environment and for Wales, partly from local government and partly from people with relevant expertise in industry, commerce and the professions, with an independent chairman.
The commission would appoint auditors to the local authorities, either from district audit or from the private sector. It would take over from my Department responsibility for the district audit service. Discussions with the staff about possible transfer arrangements will start now.
The Commission would also subsume the functions of the advisory committee on local government audit.
The commission would not be responsible for the audit of water authorities, whose auditors would in future be appointed by the relevant Secretary of State.
The commission would have powers to promote or undertake work on value for money and efficiency. It would thus cover some of the work of the local authorities management services and computer committee, and I intend to discuss this with the local authority associations.
The commission would be self-financing, primarily from audit fees, as the audit service is now. Some increase in the present scale of fees would be required to accommodate the increased audit effort.
A consultation paper setting out the details of this proposal is being issued today.
My right hon. Friend also intends to use his powers under the Local Government Act 1972 to appoint as

additional district auditors members of private accountancy firms. We believe that their diverse experience will be helpful to local authorities facing the challenges of a period of declining resources. They will undertake the audit of the accounts for 1981–82 of a small number of authorities in England, working under the general supervision of the chief inspector of audit. The authorities will be selected to give a variety of types of authority, geographical locations, and expenditure patterns. Their names will be announced in due course.
Local government expenditure in England and Wales will be about £22,000 million this year. The need to secure value for money for such a scale of public expenditure is crucial. The Government wish to establish an audit system for the future which is well equipped to meet this need. We believe that the measures that I have announced are the right way to achieve that system.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that his statement, taken together with the consultation document, shows, first, that the newly proposed audit commission will be an expanded and more expensive quango to replace the present district auditors system? How can that possibly be justified at this time? Secondly, the proposals represent a further and serious erosion of local government independence and accountability. The consultation paper and the Minister's statement rejected the unanimous advice of the Public Accounts Committee that a new national audit office should be established under the Comptroller and Auditor General. The consultation document says that such an arrangement would be
fundamentally inconsistent with the constitutional position
of local authorities. That comes from a Government who time and again in recent months have undermined the constitutional independence and responsibility of local government. What greater contradiction could there be than that? Would it not be more satisfactory, as the Public Accounts Committee suggested, for the audit service to be controlled by a distinguished public servant, the Comptroller and Auditor General, rather than by a Secretary of State and particularly by a very political Secretary of State such as the country now has?
I turn to the detailed questions. Paragraph 18 of the consultation document makes it clear that the new auditor will have expanded powers to make an immediate report
if he considered that a matter of public concern should be brought urgently to public attention.
What does that mean? Does it mean that there are irregularities or illegalities and the unlawful use of public funds? If so, of course we would support what is proposed. Or does it mean, as we fear, that the new auditors will be empowered to make political judgments and report upon areas of public policy where the responsibility must be from the local authority to its electors? What is the criterion for judging what is
a matter of public concern"?
If it is political, the Opposition take the view that local government democracy would no longer have any meaning whatsoever.
In paragraph 20 of the consultation document, the Secretary of State proposes to take powers to direct an additional, extraordinary audit.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is not this an abuse?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: To use the right hon. Gentleman's own words, is not it an abuse for the right hon. Gentleman to make the kind of speech that he would make on Second Reading of any legislation introduced as a result of the statement?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is just coming to the end of his questions on the statement and that it would therefore be better for him to continue.

Mr. Howell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the Minister says that he is making a statement in association with a White Paper issued today, a copy of which I have, it must be possible for the Opposition to draw attention to what the White Paper says, which is the guts of the Minister's statement. Otherwise, one must assume that the Government are trying to hide from the House the facts of what they seek to achieve. That is an extraordinary point of view.
According to paragraph 20 of the consultation document, the Secretary of State is taking powers to direct an extraordinary audit in addition to the powers that he already has. Again, for the benefit of hon. Members who have not obtained a copy, I quote. In any case where the Secretary of State considers that it is
justified in the public interest",
he can ask for an extraordinary audit. What does that mean? What criterion of public interest does the Secretary of State intend to apply? Is it in the area of public policy? If so, he is not only taking away the powers of local authorities to appoint their own auditors. He is taking powers to direct the new audit commission into areas of public political controversy where it ought not to be. That is a matter of fundamental policy. No Government of this country have ever before sought such totalitarian powers.
I turn to my remaining questions—and there could be many more—and ask the Minister about the appointment of auditors under paragraph 2 of his statement. He said:
we do not believe that it is right in principle that a local authority should appoint its own auditors.
Why not? Is not that a disgraceful attack upon the intergrity of professional auditors? Does not almost every business house in the country appoint its own professional auditors? Why should local government be put in a different position?
Finally, how much will all this cost? What estimate has the Minister made of the additional cost to the ratepayers and how does he intend to legislate to implement the proposals? At the moment, although I hope that he can remove some of the misgivings that I have mentioned, I must tell him that the Opposition treat the statement with the utmost seriousness in terms of the future of local government.

Mr. King: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has responded as he has to a statement which I should have thought would command wide support in the House. He attacked it as being somehow an infringement of the independence of local government. I am sure that he has checked and has found that our proposal for the audit commission is very much in line with the recommendations of the Layfield committee of which the present Labour leader of the AMA was a distinguished member, and also with evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee by, for example, councillor Roy Shaw, Labour

leader of Camden council, in support of the proposal. To suggest that it is part of some party political plot is therefore an unfortunate representation.
I was surprised also when the right hon. Gentleman suggested that almost every board of directors in the country appointed its own auditors. That is not the situation. No board of directors can appoint its own auditors. That is reserved to shareholders. No management may appoint its own auditors. It is our view, again supported by the Layfield committee, that individual local authorities should not be able to appoint their own auditors. I therefore hope that, when the right hon. Gentleman has had the chance to consider the matter at greater leisure he will regard the proposals in the consultation paper, to meet what I believe that the Public Accounts Committee unanimously agreed was an area in which more work was needed, as a sensible way in which to approach these problems.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow 20 minutes for questions on this statement and then to move on.

Mr. Tony Durant: I welcome the Minister's statement and am delighted that he has not gone down the route suggested by the Public Accounts Committee. I believe that this proposal represents a fair balance between the different points of view. Unlike the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), I believe that the Government proposals maintains an element of independence of local government from central Government and from Parliament itself which is very important. I welcome the encouragement of the private sector coming into this. I also hope that the Minister will open up far wider the provision of information to electors on local government accounts.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome to the proposals. I am also glad that he believes that this is a better constitutional balance. It is interesting that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) seemed unaware of the response of the Labour Government, in which he was a Minister, to a previous Public Accounts Committee. The Labour Government made precisely the same statement as I have made about the undesirability of the Comptroller and Auditor General affecting the present constitutional relationship of this House and local government. We therefore hope that these proposals, which are extremely similar to the present arrangements in Scotland, will be a reasonable way in which to proceed.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Under the new arrangements, would a Member of Parliament such as myself be able to ask the new audit commission to order an investigation into the alleged corruption in the London borough of Newham, where it is alleged that the ex-chairman of the housing committee, who was there for 20 years, has been putting his friends and relatives and the friends and relatives of West Ham footballers into housing and that council officials have been working hand in glove with the various Labour borough councillors to use ratepayers' money to feather their own nests? Our so-called Left-wing people are saying that this is the case. May I ask that the commission investigate these cases, to see whether there is any truth in them? If there is a misappropriation of the council rate, someone somewhere should do something about it.

Mr. King: If defamatory accusations are being made, which those so maligned feel to be without any substance, it is up to them to take civil action. I have answered a parliamentary question from the hon. Member on the issues that he has raised. It would be open, under our proposals, in exactly the same way as it is to any elector, to make representations to the district auditor on matters that he thinks deserve special investigation.

Mr. Peter Emery: How many civil servants or employees it estimated that the new audit commission will employ directly, and what is likely to be the total cost of running the new body?

Mr. King: The present cost of the district audit is about £8 million. It is a self-financing body, raising its income from audit fees from the authorities that it serves. It has 570 staff. We envisage a growth also in private sector auditing. At the moment, 27 out of 421 authorities have approved private auditors. The rest are audited by the district audit service. There are grounds for wanting a better balance in that respect. The balance in Scotland is of the order of 67 per cent. private and 33 per cent. public.

Mr. John Garrett: The Minister must be aware that the Public Accounts Committee considered it crucial that a local audit should be carried out by a body directly under the control of the House, and that all public expenditure should be audited by a body directly under the control of this House. Will he agree with me that the proposal represents a severe setback for the idea of parliamentary accountability?

Mr. King: I have tried to explain our views on that in my statement. The hon. Gentleman will be aware—I know of his interest in this matter—that that view was not accepted by the previous Labour Government, of whom he was a supporter. They rejected the concept of the Comptroller and Auditor General. We also feel that it would be an unacceptable infringement of the present constitutional relationship between local government and central Government.

Mr. William Shelton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposals will receive a great welcome in boroughs such as Lambeth, which would very much welcome the auditor having more strength and more teeth, and the power to use them? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a year and a half may pass after a complaint has been made to the district auditor before an official judgment is given by him, and that meanwhile the abuse—if, indeed, it is an abuse—continues unchecked? Will the new proposals do something to remedy this?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. The answer to his question is "Yes". The proposal is included precisely for that reason. The criterion that will determine whether the district auditor makes an earlier report will be his decision whether it is a matter of public interest.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Without having the benefit of the consultation document, which was not available 20 minutes ago in the Vote Office, I give a cautious welcome to the statement, and I think that local authorities should also do so, but some of the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) frighten me. Most people in local authorities, including myself, think that the Government are being grossly unfair to local authorities, and that the

proposals for the future are extremely dangerous. Why should the proposals not be extended to cover the water authorities? May we take it that the advice now being given to authorities which are worried about hold-hack, to bring in outside accountants, has been superseded by his statement today?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman should not be too frightened by the comments of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who on reflection may see that the proposals are to a considerable extent in line with those of the previous Labour Government. He does not seem to be tremendously aware of that fact. The water authorities have not been included because it is felt that they are more akin to the nationalised industry structure than the local government structure. This is a local government audit arrangement, and we think it sensible that water authorities should have auditors appointed by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. David Stoddart: Is it not a fact that, in spite of the Minister's honeyed words about local government, the Government really detest local government and fear local democracy? Is it not a fact that the whole idea behind the new arrangement is to enable political decisions to be taken by appointed auditors? Is not that the prime aim of the Government, who would perhaps prefer to appoint gauleiters rather than local councillors?

Mr. King: That is a singularly ill-informed question. At the moment, the district audit service is part of the Department of the Environment. It works within the Department and is controlled by Ministers. Our proposal is to distance it from the Department of the Environment and to give local government for the first time a real say in the management of its own audit service. Far from having a centralising effect, it is an improvement in the arrangements.

Sir Albert Costain: I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he presented the statement and for giving the House an opportunity to comment on the proposals. Does he agree that the nonsense from the Opposition Benches is a clear indication that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing? Does the Minister appreciate that this is one of the first occasions on which the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee have been discussed in the House in this way? Are we to have a statement on how to deal with the nationalised industries, which the Public Accounts Committee—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question does not arise out of the statement. The hon. Gentleman is referring to another statement.

Sir Albert Costain: It is in the document that we are considering, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Like everyone else, I do not know what is in the document, but I know what is in the statement.

Mr. King: It was because we proposed early legislation in this matter that we felt it right to make a statement. Obviously, it will be for the House to decide whether it wishes to have further debate on the wider issues raised in the White Paper.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Why does the Minister not recognise the force of the


argument which the Public Accounts Committee accepted and put before the House, that the House should have control over the global totals of sums voted to local authorities by this House? There is nothing unconstitutional in giving the Comptroller and Auditor General the responsibility to account to this House for the vast sums of money that the House votes.

Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should be accountability only in respect of the grant moneys and that rate-funded expenditure should not be covered in this way, I do not think that that is a practical way in which to organise a local government audit. I am sure that he is familiar with the arguments. It is a matter of judgment. We believe that the proposal represents the best way in which to proceed.

Mr. Neville Trotter: I declare an interest as an accountant, and also as a former city council finance chairman. I welcome the statement. Local government in general will benefit from the introduction of a wider financial acumen than that available to the district auditor, who has performed his job very well in a limited sphere. With the vast sums of money now being spent by local government, there is a need for more value for money judgment than can readily be made available by the district audit service. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a scheme similar to his has worked successfully for many years in Scotland?

Mr. King: I confirm the latter point. I gave a figure of £8 million, which represents the total audit effort in relation to an expenditure of £22,000 million. We agree with the Public Accounts Committee that much more work needs to be done in the area of value for money, and we hope that our proposals will help to enhance that.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister give us a clear outline of the cost of this quango? Will he also give an assurance that there will be no regional spawning of other quangos as a result of the introduction of the commission? Will he confirm that, under any new set-up, the system of local government audit will not be such that if a local authority decides to pay its workers decent wages the authority's members can be surcharged as a result of an extraordinary audit while a Tory local authority can refuse to implement the Chronically Sick and

Disabled Persons Act and to employ its quota of disabled workers without coming under public scrutiny? Do not the Government have a cheek and is it not bordering on the bounds of hypocrisy for them to talk about local government getting its estimates right when, in the last financial year, they overestimated the public sector borrowing requirement by £5,000 million and got off scot-free?

Mr. King: I am not sure how many of those points arise directly from the statement. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman listened carefully. We are proposing that the quango set up by the previous Government—the advisory committee on local government audit—will be subsumed within the new proposal.

Mr. Denis Howell: Will the Minister answer the one crucial question? What does the phrase "the public interest" mean, according to which the new audit service, or the Secretary of State, will be able to make an extraordinary audit of a local authority? Does it mean areas of political policy? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman note that we shall fundamentally oppose such a proposition because a professional audit service should not become involved in areas of political controversy?

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman may not be clear about that part of the consultation paper. At present, the Secretary of State has the power to direct an extraordinary audit. The proposal in the paper is that the power to direct an extraordinary audit will fall on the local government audit commission. The Secretary of State will retain powers to require or request the local government audit commission to make an extraordinary audit. Therefore, the Secretary of State will not increase his powers but will retain the power that he has.

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Appropriation Act 1981
2. Belize Act 1981
3. Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981
4. Supreme Court Act 1981
5. Armed Forces Act 1981
6. Greater London Council (Money) Act 1981

Herring Industry

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the serious situation facing the herring industry following the decision of the European Commission, announced in the House today.
I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not having given you earlier notice, but until I had heard the Minister's full statement and the exchanges that followed it, I was not aware of the serious nature of what has happened. The Commission has overruled the Council of Ministers in a decision that could be described as representing a monstrous new doctrine. More importantly, the decision appears to be unprecedented and Ministers agree that it is of doubtful legality.
I understand that when an issue of doubtful legality is proposed, action—under the normal circumstances of law—should not proceed until the issue's legality has been tested. On a matter of such importance that should be the case. As the Commission's decision affects not only the immediate question of opening the herring fishery but the whole prospect of an agreement on the common fisheries policy, this matter should be given urgent and grave consideration.
Even if the fishery re-opens, as the Commission suggests, the Minister was still unable—perhaps because of the shortage of time—to explain adequately how the monitoring arrangements will operate. It is clear that the monitoring arrangements and the reporting that will accompany them will be complicated and difficult to check. It could well be that the total allowable catch could be grossly exceeded before the Government had any indication that that was so.
Although scientific evidence suggests that fishing can restart, the stale of the herring stocks is so fragile that we could ruin the stocks and wipe herring from the sea for ever if these matters are not checked. I shall cite an example

to show how difficult it is to check such things. The Dutch were given a special allocation of herring that was to be caught for the Maasteg festival. When their total catch eventually became public knowledge, it was found that they had caught about 10 times the amount that they were permitted to catch. If every country were to take 10 times the amount of herring permitted under the Commission's proposals, there would be no herring left.
At the first sign that reporting is not taking place—which is not a fanciful idea—the Minister should be given an opportunity to tell the House how he will immediately close the fishery. It is no use waiting, until it is too late. As soon as any country or vessel is late in reporting, the fishery should be closed until arrangements have been properly sorted out.
This is a very serious matter that affects not only the men who catch the herring and the processors but the very existence of a species of fish for which many have made great sacrifices in the past three years in order to preserve them not only for us but for future generations. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will be able to grant this application.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the serious situation facing the herring industry following the decision of the European Commission, announced in the House today.
I listened carefully to the exchanges that took place in the House today and I realise that the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to a very important matter. However, as the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reason for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the serious arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Questions to Ministers

Dr. Edmund Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to seek your guidance on a situation that has arisen as a result of written answers that I have received to parliamentary questions that I have tabled to the Home Secretary.
On 19 June 1981 I asked
whether he will list the 1981 electorates of the proposed new constituencies provisionally recommended by the Boundary Commission for England for the counties of Humberside, Merseyside, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire.
The Minister, the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) replied:
I am obtaining this information and will publish it in the Official Report as soon as it is available."—[Official Report, 19 June 1981; Vol. 6, c. 471.]
At about the same time eight of my hon. Friends tabled similar questions for their respective parts of the country. They all received virtually the same answer from the Minister.
The weeks went by, but still no information appeared. As we were beginning to approach the Summer Recess, I tabled a priority written question last week asking whether the information I had sought would be published in the Official Report. On 23 July, the same Minister gave the following written reply:
I shall write to the hon. Member."—[Official Report, 23 July 1981; Vol. 9, c. 202.]
As yet, I have received no such letter from the Minister.
My point of order is twofold. First, as the Minister has undertaken to publish the information in the Official Report when it is available, and as it looks increasingly likely that the information will become available during the recess, is there any way in which you, Mr. Speaker, can arrange for a special edition of the Official Report containing all the information sought by my hon. Friends and me to appear during the recess?
Secondly, as on 8 May the Minister had already given a full written answer to the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Loveridge), providing the corresponding information for proposed constituencies in Greater London, is there anything that you can do, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the questions tabled by my hon. Friends and myself receive equally full and helpful replies?

Mr. Speaker: First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise that point of order, for that enabled me to look into the matter. Had he not mentioned the possibility of a special issue of the Official Report, I would have sought to dissuade him from raising his point of order, as the content of answers and speculation about the reasons of Ministers are not, never have been and, I hope, never will be the responsibility of the occupant of the Chair. As to his suggestion about special arrangements being made for the publication of the answer he is expecting, I regret that I do not consider that such an innovation would be justified.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am one of those who tabled a question and received a written answer on 29 June, four weeks ago. That means that any Minister can get away with an answer by saying that he will publish the information in the Official Report and, if a recess intervenes, no answer will be available for four months. I know that it is not your responsibility, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that my ruling made it clear that I am not responsible for the content of Ministers' replies or the way in which they answer.

Mr. Mitchell: I appreciate that you, Mr. Speaker, have no direct responsibility for Ministers' answers to questions, but you have a general overall responsibility for the protection of the rights of Back Benchers. That has always been one of Mr. Speaker's traditional roles. Will you seriously consider this matter again, especially now that a recess is imminent? It is wrong that Ministers should be able to evade answers indefinitely, and that problem would seem to come under the general ambit of your role in the protection of Back Benchers.

Mr. Speaker: I am always conscious of my responsibilities to guard the rights of Back Benchers but, by and large, they are rights within the House. Without committing myself, I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you consider this matter, will you consider your comment when you said that they are "rights within the House"? Mr. Speaker must guard the traditions of the House. That is vastly different from the question asked by my hon. Friend. The problem now ceases to be a matter for my hon. Friends. The Minister has told the House that he will publish the reply in the Official Report. Therefore, Mr. Speaker surely has a right to guard the traditions and rights of the House.
If a Minister wants to be shabby and treat a Back-Bench Member from either side with contempt, if he refuses to give an answer or wishes to be rude, he is entitled to do so. But if he says to the House that he intends to do something, he has made a pledge to the House.
That is where you, Mr. Speaker, have a right to say that, as custodian of the House, and since a Minister has promised to do something, you are in charge and you want to know the reply.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is an experienced Member of the House and I will take seriously what he has said.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Motion relating to Steel Industry with the substitution of One o'clock or three hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, for the provisions in paragraph (1)(b) of the Standing Order.—[Mr. Cope.]

Closed Churchyards

Mr. Raymond Ellis: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the maintenance of closed churchyards.
It is my intention to avoid making silly comments about how grave the situation is. All local authorities are almost in the grip of financial rigor mortis. It is that which has prompted me to seek the support of the House. Any churchyard, once there is no further room for new graves, may be formally closed by an Order in Council. Subsequently, the responsibility to maintain the churchyard
in decent order and its walls and fences in good repair
may be transferred to the district council at any time under section 215 of the Local Government Act 1972.
In general, most churchyards are notoriously badly maintained. The boundary walls are frequently in a dangerous condition, trees require urgent surgery and often need felling, and periodic or regular grass cutting between the gravestones is necessary. Nevertheless, the future responsibility for the maintenance and repair of churchyards can be transferred within weeks to the district council. Whether a churchyard is recently closed or has been closed for over 100 years makes no difference.
The initial costs as well as the annual costs often run into many thousands of pounds for each churchyard. All that expenditure counts as part of the local authority's' grant-related expenditure. Those costs cannot be avoided. There is no appeal and no chance to budget in the first year when the cost will clearly be at its highest.
The problem will grow for two main reasons. First, prior to 1975, churchyards could be handed over only on public health grounds. The average number of churchyards closed each year stood at 12 at that time. In 1975 that qualification was removed and the average number of closures over the past four years has shot up to 84 per cent.
The second reason for the growth of the problem is that recently the Act was extended to cover other religious denominations as well as the Church of England. I have no quarrel against the churches. That is not my function. However, in this one year my local authority of North-East Derbyshire has had two churchyards handed over to it. One cost £25,000 initially and the other has not yet been costed. Tameside metropolitan borough has, this year, had

to accept a disused burial ground covering 10 acres and the cost of repairing it was estimated in 1979 to be £120,000. That does not include the cost of future maintenance.
A number of district councils have asked the Government for assistance, but to no avail. Members on both sides of the House, together with over 150,000 local authority representatives have written to me expressing their support.
That must be seen against the background of the Government's cash limits. The first year's expenditure cannot be budgeted for and, in complying with the law, the local authorities will inevitably exceed the cash limits imposed by the Government and will therefore have to take a cut in their programme.
Such iniquity can never be justified, but to be fair to the Minister he has suggested that he might extend the period of notice. I cannot see how a stay of execution or the putting off of the evil day can help except by giving a temporary breathing space.
I believe that the law must be changed in the following manner. Section 215(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 specifies that where a churchyard is closed by an Order in Council
the parochial church council shall maintain it by keeping it in decent order and its walls and fences in good repair.
Subsection (2) enables a parochial church council to hand over the authority on three months' notice.
My Bill will provide that the church can take advantage of subsection (2) only if it has already complied with subsection (1) until the time of transfer.
One graveyard will never be closed. That is the graveyard where we bury Ten-Minute Bills. I hope that on this occasion, in fairness to the district local authorities, the House will support my motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Raymond Ellis, Mrs. Ann Taylor, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. John Prescott, Mr. Ray Fletcher, Mr. George Grant, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Bob Cryer, Dr. John Cunningham, Mr. Harry Cowans, Mr. John McWilliam and Mr. Allen Adams.

CLOSED CHURCHYARDS

Mr. Raymond Ellis accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the maintenance of closed churchyards: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday and to be printed. [Bill No. 198.]

Transport Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [9th March] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendment

1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 9th March, each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE Proceedings


Lords Amendments
Time for conclusion


Nos. 1 to 9
5.30


Nos. 10 and



11
6.30


No. 12
9.00


Nos. 13 to 74
11.00

2. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings for one hour after 10 o'clock.

3. For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords
Amendments

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the

Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then—

(i) put forthwith the Questions on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item in the Lords Message;
(ii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

6.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

The order will ensure that the House has the opportunity to decide at a reasonable hour this evening the few important issues that are still to be resolved, so that the Bill can complete its remaining stages before the Summer Recess. In the arrangement of the proceedings we have sought to meet the wishes of the House and the Opposition. The order will bring proceedings on the first nine Lords amendments, which are entirely technical, to a conclusion by 5.30 pm and the proceedings on Lords amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which deal with powers of entry, to a conclusion by 6.30 pm. We have sought to meet the wishes of the Opposition spokesman.

That means that the House will have at least two and a half hours in which to debate the seat belts issue. The proceedings on that issue are to be brought to a conclusion by 9 pm.

The order further provides that the proceedings on the remaining amendments shall be completed by 11 pm, which allows for another two hours' debate.

Since we introduced the Bill last December more than 950 amendments have been tabled and we have had nearly 160 hours of debate. I hope that we can move quickly to our consideration of the Lords amendments.

Mr. Albert Booth (Harrow-in-Furness): Given the Government's sad record of restricting debate on every other Commons stage of the Bill, with the exception of the Second Reading, one comes to a further guillotine motion with an appalling sense of inevitability. I shall not rehearse the classic and valid objections to guillotines which are normally deployed.
I object strenuously to what the Secretary of State has just said about the time provided. He suggests that we have between now and 5.30 pm to debate the first nine amendments. That would be true only if we gave up our right to debate the guillotine motion. If we took only an


hour to debate the guillotine motion and took advantage of that limited right, we should go past the first guillotine slot in the proposition.
To introduce a guillotine motion on a day when the Government have so staged the business as to have two statements and a Ten-Minute Bill to eat into the time to debate the order of our business is an affront to the rights of the House. The Government have tabled the guillotine motion on the day that we are to debate the Lords amendments. Inevitably, if we exercise our right to debate the guillotine we do so at the expense of debating the Lords amendments. It is unreasonable and improper to table a guillotine motion in a way that takes time out of guillotined debate.
The terms of the motion are designed, as are other guillotine motions, to protect the Government's interest in their business and in the Lords amendments with which they wish the House to deal. The motion also protects the Lord's interests by instructing you, Mr. Speaker, to put before the House those Lords amendments that are not covered by the Government.
The guillotine motion does not offer protection to Back Benchers in the time that they can spend debating the issues. If the Bill had not already been subject to the guillotine that might not be such an important issue. However, the Bill was guillotined in its Committee stage and on Report. As a result, some of the issues in the Lords amendments have not yet been debated in the House, although they would have been debated if the Bill had not been guillotined. When hon. Members wish to raise issues on Lords amendments which they have not yet had time to debate, it is a bit much of the Government to suggest that the restriction is reasonable.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on executing a perfect 180 degree U-turn from the position that he took when we discussed the last guillotine motion. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that my hon. Friends and I sought to persuade him that if there were to be a guillotine motion, he should apportion the time to allow the House to take a decision on seat belts. We sought to persuade him to do that. We believed it to be the will of the House, but that was frustrated in Committee. The Secretary of State said "No", that the Government could not do that, and that if they did it would be interfering with the business of the House in favour of hon. Members who wanted to debate that issue. He was referring to those who had had the audacity to take a new clause to encapsulate their views on seat belts.
The Secretary of State said that the Government could not table a timetable motion that would facilitate the House of Commons to reach a decision, but he has tabled just such a motion today. It will facilitate the House to debate the views not of hon. Members, but of the House of Lords on seat belts. That shows that the Secretary of State has a total disregard for the rights of hon. Members. I do not make any distinction between Opposition and Government Back Benchers for this purpose. The Secretary of State has

disregarded the rights of hon. Members to express their views. He should at least have allowed the House of Commons to come to a decision. However, when hereditary peers, or those appointed to another place, take a view, the right to have a debate is protected. Such issues have not arisen on any other guillotine debate in which I have been involved. That is why the guillotine motion is unreasonable.

5 pm

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I rise to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), if he will forgive me, on this issue. It is not a party political matter. It is a House of Commons matter. I would also ask Conservative Members to bear in mind the history and background of guillotines. All hon. Members know how and why they arise. In this case, however, my right hon. Friend has, I believe, proved his case.
The Government themselves say in their motion that Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 9 should be concluded at 5.30 pm. Obviously, they were under the impression when making that proposal that hon. Members would have begun their discussion at about 3.30 pm. We have not started at about 3.30 pm. Able and efficient though you are, Mr. Speaker, even you cannot ensure that our business begins at 3.30 pm. It is now 5 pm. Hon Members are now told, in effect, that the two hours originally to be allowed for discussing the nine amendments have been reduced to half an hour—or less than half an hour if my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) starts interrupting.
Paragraph 6(6) of the supplemental order shows that the Government took precautions in providing that any time allocated by you, Mr. Speaker, to a motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 would have been allowed for. Why could not the. Government also have included wording to the effect that if Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 9 could not be allocated two hours before 5.30, time could be added? I do not think that any hon. Members would have objected.
I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you would be prepared to accept a manuscript amendment from my right hon. Friend specifying that the originally expected time of two hours should be allowed on the first batch of Lords amendments. I assume that the timing for debates on the remaining Lords amendments would have to be altered which would upset all the dinner arrangements and cocktail parties of hon. Members. The Government should examine the matter. All hon. Members know that the Government manoeuvre and manipulate these things. A question or a statement is often arranged. It is often welcomed when a matter is put off from Monday to Tuesday. I do not believe that any Government should be allowed to get away with what has happened today. It deprives Back Benchers of the limited rights that they possess. The Government should be opposed.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Transport Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 19

DISQUALIFICATION FOR REPEATED OFFENCES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 14, line 29, after first "of insert "penalty"

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 8, 39, 40, and 53 to 59.

Mr. Clarke: These amendments cover a simple and narrow point arising out of the new system introduced by the Bill of points for traffic offences when someone commits an endorsable traffic offence. The House approved an arrangement whereby points will be attributed to particular offences. When the Bill reached another place, Lord Houghton put forward amendments because he preferred to call the points "penalty points". No one objected. It seemed a generally acceptable proposal. I have not met anyone, apart from Lord Houghton, who feels strongly whether the points should be called merely "points" or "penalty points". It seems a sensible description.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 25

NEW PROVISIONS AS TO OFFENCES RELATING TO ALCOHOL AND DRUGS

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 20, line 2, leave out from "is" to end of line 3 and insert
added at the end of subsection (3):—
but in determining whether there was such a likelihood the court may disregard any injury to him and any damage to the vehicle.
(2) The following is substituted for subsection (5) of that section:—

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Contrary to some of the comments made a few moments ago, I think I can say without tempting fate that it will be almost impossible to keep this amendment going until 5.30 pm—the time allotted to it. I do not invite any hon. Member to interpret what I say as a challenge. If discussion is extended, it will intrude on an important debate afterwards which the Opposition wish to conduct and for which they suggested a 5.30 pm start under the guillotine motion.
This is a technical drafting amendment. It corrects a longstanding drafting anomaly last enacted in the Road Traffic Act 1972. At the moment, as the law stands, under what will become section 6(2), under schedule 8 to the Bill concerning drink-drive offences, it is a defence to the charge of being in charge of a vehicle when above the limit if the driver can show that there was no likelihood of his driving so long as he remained above the limit.
For a long time and for no clear reason, there has been a further proviso to that defence which applies to section 6 but does not apply to section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. The defence that a driver can show that there was no likelihood of his driving so long as he remained above the limit is limited by a provision that the court may disregard any injury to the accused and any damage to his vehicle in determining whether it was likely that he would drive. That avoids the nonsensical position arising where a driver asserts that he has not committed an offence because there is no likelihood of his driving while remaining above the limit and the only reason why there is no likelihood of his driving is that he is too injured to drive or the vehicle is so damaged by the accident that it is immobile. Plainly that was not intended to be open to anyone as a valid defence.
It is arguable, on the wording of section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, that such a defence is available to someone charged with being in charge of a vehicle while his ability to drive was impaired by drink and drugs. It can never have been the intention of Parliament that the defence under section 5 should not be limited by the same proviso that limits the defence under section 6. This amendment puts the two offences on the same footing in relation to that small provision. I doubt very much whether the difference is of great practical importance. I do not believe that it often comes before the courts, but cases could arise where it was a matter of some significance. I therefore invite the House to take this opportunity to put matters right and back in a logical order.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 20, line 6, at end insert—
(6) For the purpose of arresting a person under the power conferred by subsection (5) above a constable may enter (if need be by force) any place where that person is or where the constable, with reasonable cause, suspects him to be.
(7) Subsection (6) above does not extend to Scotland and nothing in that subsection shall affect any rule of law in Scotland concerning the right of a constable to enter any premises for any purpose.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Albert Booth: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, to insert after subsection (6)
' ' other than that persons' home and may enter a person's home only when the constable with reasonable cause suspects him of having failed to report an accident in which he was involved in which a person was injured. For the purposes of this subsection a person's home is his usual place of residence'.
The purpose of the amendment to the Lords amendment is to limit the circumstances in which a constable can force an entry into a person's home to arrest him without a warrant on the suspicion of his having driven while unfit through drink. We want to limit a constable's right to force an entry to the time when he has reasonable cause to suspect that the person whom he is seeking to arrest without a warrant has failed to report an accident in which he was involved and in which someone was injured.
This issue raises grave and important questions. Account must be taken, for example, of the privacy of a person's home. That is a civil right. What are the powers of enforcement with which we should invest our police force? How should we proceed with the important new enforcement powers that the Government are proposing to enshrine in legislation?
There are issues that involve a sensitive judgment. We are dealing with what is in practice an amendment to


section 5 of the 1972 Act. The amendment does not impinge on section 7 of that Act, which is covered in schedule 8 to the Bill. The amendment would have no effect on the powers of a constable to require a person to take a breathalyser test or to enter a person's home to require him to comply with such a test. Those issues are dealt with in schedule 8.
When the issue was before the Committee charged with the consideration of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) proposed, on behalf of the Opposition, that the power of a constable to require somebody to take a breathalyser test should be extended. Their Lordships have extended it even further than we proposed. That is not the issue before the House now. We are considering the powers to be found in section 5 of the 1972 Act. Until the Bill is enacted, that Act gives a constable power to arrest without a warrant a person committing an offence under the section.
Clause 25 extends the powers contained in section 5 of the 1972 Act by adding the following words:
A constable may arrest a person without warrant if he has reasonable cause to suspect that that person is or has been committing an offence under this section.
The purpose of the section was to give a constable the right to arrest someone on the ground of reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence.
When the Bill went to another place their Lordships decided to extend the power much further. In Lords amendment No. 10 their Lordships have proposed the following:
For the purpose of arresting a person under the power conferred by subsection (5) above a constable may enter (if need be by force) any place where that person is or where the constable, with reasonable cause, suspects him to be.
If we accept the amendment, and if the Bill is enacted, there will be no restriction on a police constable to prevent him from entering if he can contend that he had reasonable suspicion that the person he was seeking was in the premises and had committed an offence. It is an unqualified power in the sense that the police officer does not have to prove that the person is in the premises. He does not have to display proof that the person concerned committed the offence.
5.15 pm
We are dealing with an area in which the range of offences is extremely wide. Section 5 refers to an offence which can embrace someone who is arguably on the borderline and is influenced in his control of a vehicle, but which he is not attempting to drive, having had a couple of pints of beer, and an offence in which someone who is in a state that is commonly described as paralytic drives into and kills a group of children.
We contend that there must be some regard for the gravity of the offence before we decide whether we want to give the police the power that those in another place seek to give them. We believe that there is a distinction to be drawn that must be based on the gravity of the offence, and that that must be exercised before a policeman can knock on the door of my home, for example, and say to my wife "I think that your husband is in there and I believe that he has been in charge of a vehicle under the influence of drink. I want to come in and arrest him without a warrant."
If my wife slams the door shut, if the Bill is enacted in its present form the police will be entitled to bash down my door. I might return at night to find the door broken

down and to discover that the police have entered. In those circumstances I should have no right of compensation against the police officer concerned if he could show that his suspicion was reasonable. That is not difficult to do. It is not difficult to suspect someone of being at home at night if one does not know that he is a Member of Parliament. It is not difficult to suspect someone of driving or attempting to drive his car when, for example, someone else was driving it. Another possibility is that the car has been stolen. It is not difficult to envisage circumstances in which that might come about.
We are saying that we must discriminate and that that must be the test before we give such sweeping and almost punitive enforcement power to the police. We have decided that the test should be whether someone has been injured by a driver who has not stopped and the driver gives a police officer reasonable cause to believe that he was driving. That, and only that, should enable the officer to go into the suspected person's home.
On Second Reading the Secretary of State inadvertently misled the House when he said that the amendments to section 5 and schedule 8 dealt with increasing the powers of the police to obtain a breathalyser test. They do not. Obviously the schedule 8 amendments have that effect, in that they seek to rewrite part of section 7. However, the change in respect of section 5 stands on its own. If a constable has arrested someone under section 5, it is understandable that he will require him to take a breath test. He would be rather a silly constable if he did not. He does not need the power in section 5 to do that. He will have the necessary power under the amended section 7 if we accept schedule 8 and the amendments thereto.
The power to arrest without a warrant was given to a constable to deal with someone who had committed an offence. It has been extended to give the officer power to enter someone's home. The right of a citizen to the privacy of his home should not be forfeit to police enforcement powers irrespective of the nature of the offence. We should take into account the nature of the offence.
The right of a citizen to the privacy of the home should not be forfeit without regard to whether the enforcement action is based solely on the suspicion of an offence having been committed. There is a distinction between the enforcement power in respect of something that is suspected and the enforcement power in respect of somebody having committed an offence. When the offence is grave, forcible entry may be justified. We do not deny that. It may be justified, even on suspicion, if it is suspicion of an extremely grave offence. The offence of having injured a person and not having reported it is such a case.
I shall remind the House of what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading when he was challenged by one of his hon. Friends about why he was not introducing the random tests proposed in the Blennerhassett report. He gave three reasons, which are relevant to the amendment. He said that the Bill contained sufficient powers to deal with the issue. If that is correct, there are now more than sufficient powers, because the Bill has been amended to increase the powers.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that because there were sufficient powers the additional power was unnecessary. Certainly, there are sufficient powers. In view of the enormous strengthening of section 7—the right


to enter premises to require the test, the right to enter the home, and the right to use force to enter to require the test—we believe that the additional power is unnecessary.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State said that one of the things that had influenced him in rejecting the Blennerhassett proposition about random tests was that it was important to have in mind the relationship that exists between the police and the motorist. He said that that relationship was an important part of police public relations and that an extension of power of this kind—the Blennerhassett proposal—could damage that relationship.
What could be more damaging to the relationship between the motorist and the police than for the motorist to arrive home and find that his door had been broken down by a policeman entering on suspicion? If the Secretary of State does not think that that is potentially damaging, he should go to Brixton and talk to people who have had their doors knocked down by policemen and see whether it has harmed the relationship. Of course it is a potentially damaging action. I find myself at one with the Secretary of State in saying that that is one of the matters that should be considered.
If all, or any, of the reasons that the Secretary of State gave for rejecting the Blennerhassett proposal are valid in relation to that proposal, they are equally, if not more, valid in respect of this power which the Lords propose to add to section 5 of the 1972 Act. As we seriously consider the appropriate punishments or penalties in relation to the seriousness of crimes, we should also consider whether the enforcement rights that we give to the police are appropriate to the offences with which they are dealing, or the suspicion of offences, particularly if we can accord those powers to the police at the cost of impinging on a citizen's privacy in his own home.
Those who believe that there should be no limitation on police powers to enforce if there is any suspicion of an offence having been committed, that the police are entitled to break into any home or premises on the ground of suspicion, must vote against the Opposition amendment. However, those who believe, as we do, that the privacy of a person's home is an important civil right and should be subordinated to the enforcement powers of the police only when there is serious justification will welcome the amendment and give it the serious consideration that it deserves.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I agree with the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) that the amendment raises important issues. As he knows, they have been troublesome throughout our proceedings on the Bill. We had a short but serious debate on the matter in Committee, and the Government undertook to consider it in the light of the various reactions received to our original draft. As a result of that careful consideration, the Government tabled amendment No. 10 and the amendments also selected for this debate which I propose to commend to the House.

Mr. Booth: I am sorry to intervene so early, and I thank the Under-Secretary for giving way. We did not debate clause 25 in Committee. We debated the schedule 8 amendment to section 7, and it was in that regard that the undertaking was given by the Government to reconsider the matter. Clauses 25 and 26 were two of the victims of the guillotine.

Mr. Clarke: I agree, but the same issues were raised about the police being given a power of entry to enforce particular aspects of the breathalyser law. I agree that our debate was so confined that the matter arose on schedule 8 on that occasion.
The right hon. Gentleman raised two issues. I shall deal with them separately. First, I shall deal with the slightly less serious question of the way in which the Bill widens to a certain extent the power of arrest which has long existed under section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. Section 5 is the old pre-breathalyser law governing the offences of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle when under the influence of drink or drugs. Clause 25 slightly widens the power of arrest to include the case where a constable has reasonable cause to suspect not only that the person is committing an offence, but has been committing an offence under this clause. That is in line with the changes that we made in what is the new clause 7 in schedule 8, dealing with constables' powers to require a breath test for prescribed reasons. We have slightly extended the grounds on which a policeman may require a breath test—in two cases to introduce the past tense, that not only is a person driving but has been driving in prescribed circumstances that give rise to the requirement of a breath test.
I suggest that that is not a very wide extension of the power of arrest. A police officer has the power to arrest on reasonable suspicion of the commission of many criminal offences. That is the usual test that a police officer has to apply before deciding to arrest a person. We are merely saying that a police constable may arrest if he has reasonable suspicion, not only that the person is driving under the influence of drink but that he has been driving. That covers the kind of cases that have been described. The offence can be serious, if a policeman has seen someone driving, perhaps hopelessly under the influence of drink, but by the time the policeman gets to him he has stopped driving, parked his car and is walking away from it. Those are circumstances in which I am sure that the House would not object to the power of arrest being extended, and it was not challenged in our earlier proceedings.
That brings me to the more substantial point that was put by the right hon. Gentleman: the question of when the police should have a power of entry into premises for the purpose either or requiring a breath test or of arresting someone for a section 5 offence without a warning.
There are conflicting considerations, and we must find a compromise somewhere between them. The first consideration is the need to make the laws about drink and driving sensibly enforceable. The law is designed to protect innocent members of the public against death or injury caused by the thoughtless actions of others. That law must be enforceable. There is the equally valid consideration that we do not wish to give the police such powers to enforce the law that the civil rights of innocent people may be infringed or, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the ordinary good relationship between the police and public disturbed.
5.30 pm
Under the existing law on drink and drive, as embodied in the 1972 Act, although the police have a wide range of circumstances in which they can require a breath test, and although they are empowered to arrest someone for drunk driving or being drunk in charge, they have no power of


entry to premises to enforce the law. They have certain powers of entry to enforce criminal law, which are usually governed by section 2 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. That lays down that the police power of entry is confined to those offences where the penalty is imprisonment for a maximum of at least five years. That does not cover any of the breathalyser or drink and drive offences, or any of the requirements for a breath test.
The police have enforced drink-drive cases without difficulty, except in the few cases where the suspect has gone onto premises, revoked the police licence and made the police trespassers. At that point the police are obliged to withdraw as quickly as possible. Any action they may take as trespassers on the premises is not in the enforcement of their duty, and matters can be taken no further. At one stage there was some doubt about the extent to which the police could enter premises against the wishes of the owner, to ask for a breathalyser test or to make an arrest. However, a case known as Morris v. Beardmore, and successive cases have made it clear that the police have no such powers.
We must consider whether the police should have powers to enter premises even to the extent, as the right hon. Gentleman said, of forcing the door if the owner of the premises refuses admission when the police try to obtain a breath test or effect an arrest. We agonised carefully about that matter. We originally drafted a Bill to try to reflect the case laws that were established in Morris v. Beardmore. That would have given a wide sanctuary to suspects against police in almost all cases where, on any premises, the owner revoked the police licence to be there and said that they were trespassers. There was understandable police objection to that. They said that farmers could jump into their fields and order the police to go away, even though the farmer might obviously be drunk or might have been involved in a serious accident. People could go to their shop premises and exclude the police. They could run to the home of a friend and ask the friend to exclude the police. The police would be left powerless.
We are not dealing with the ordinary case where somebody approached at his door is asked for a breath test and is inclined to give it. We are dealing with someone who is approached by the police, who have reason to require a breath test or effect an arrest, but who refuses entry and will have nothing more to do with the proceedings. That leaves the police impotent and powerless, simply gazing at the suspect. It need not be a case where a person has simply shut or bolted the door. Following Morris v. Beardmore, there have been cases of drivers leaving their cars in circumstances that gave rise to suspicion. The police may even talk to a driver on the driveway of his house, and his breath may smell of drink. He can say "Go away, I shall not give a breath test". If the police wish to arrest him he can again say "Go away". Every action (hat the police took thereafter would be ineffective because they would be trespassers. They could leave the suspect in a serious case making rude gestures over the hedge, and be quite powerless to do anything about it.
The Law Lords said that Parliament should decide whether it wishes the law to be enforced properly. We must decide what can be done to give the police the necessary rights to demand a breath test or effect an arrest while, at the same time, not causing unnecessary offence or difficulty to the public or an intrusion into civil liberties.
We arrived at the conclusion that is embodied in the amendments. Police should have the necessary powers of entry in the most serious cases. We do not think that it is the general wish of the public, or of the House, that police should be given the right to force an entry following some minor traffic offence. However, there are certain circumstances where, in our opinion—and I trust with the consent of the House, and certainly with the consent of another place—the police should have a right of entry if a serious offence may have been committed. The police should be entitled to investigate that properly.
The Bill, as amended in another place, gives the police the necessary powers of entry, using force if required, into any premises for three purposes. First, if they require to take a breath test if a person has been driving or has been in charge of a vehicle that has been involved in an accident in which another person has suffered personal injury. For example, if someone has left the schene of an accident in which a person has been injured, the police should have the power of entry to obtain a breath test. Secondly, there should be the power of entry to arrest a person who has been required to take a test in those circumstances if he gives a positive reading or if he refuses to comply.
Broadly speaking, that is the personal accident case. The right hon. Gentleman did not challenge that. The point is not raised by his amendment. It is relevant to our debate because of the Lords amendments. The provision is very much in line with an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) in Committee. I think that we are all agreed abou the personal injury cases.
The third purpose is to enable the police to arrest a person if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that he has committed a section 5 offence—that is, driving or being in charge of a vehicle while unfit to do so because of the effect of drink or drugs. The right hon. Gentleman has doubts about that. We have chosen that further provision as another category of serious offence. It is not simply a breathalyser offence where someone is required to give a breath test although he may not have committed an offence. It is not against the law of Britain to have a drink while driving, but only to be above the limit. However, if a driver has drink on his breath he is liable to be asked to give a breath test. That is fair enough on the road, but there is no reason why a power of entry should be given in that case.
However, in the section 5 case where we propose to give a power of entry, the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed. The circumstances where that is likely to arise is where someone has been observed by the police—or by someone who has reported that to the police—as driving or being in charge of a vehicle when plainly under the influence of drink. That covers the cases of someone who is weaving about while driving home, or the driver who may hit something, such as a lamp post, have left the car and staggered home or into some nearby premises. Those are cases where people are under the influence of drink.
If the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that someone is under the influence of drink and that his driving is impaired, it must be right to empower them to enter premises and effect an arrest. They would be entitled to effect an arrest if the person was still on the public highway. That person should not have the right to refuse admission. The arrest should be effected. That is a further category that will catch the serious offences.
I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's comparison between our attitude to that category and our attitude to random tests. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, myself and the Government have been strongly against the idea of introducing random breathalyser tests. However, that is a different circumstance. There is no reason why any driver should have been committing a criminal offence. Random tests would give the police the power to stop any driver and require a breathalyser test, even when the driver was doing nothing to give grounds for that other than sitting in a vehicle and being on a road.
That is a long way from the category of cases that we are describing where a policeman has grounds for thinking that someone is doing what is colloquially known as drunk driving. It covers those cases where the person happens to be on premises by the time the policeman catches up with him. In the few cases in which the owner of the premises—it might be the person's home—tries to revoke the police licence to be there and treat them as trespassers, they will then have the necessary powers of entry to enforce the law.
I hope that with that explanation I have managed to answer some of the understandable concern expressed by the right hon. Member. I believe that in a difficult area we have the balance about right between, on the one hand, the liberties of the individual—certainly the liberties of the innocent motorist—and on the other the need to make the law properly enforceable and to avoid cases where motorists cock a snook at the police when they have possibly been guilty of a serious offence which has caused risk to other people.
The amendments were commended by the other place. There is a wide area of opinion on the subject, which is why it has taken so long to come up with this package, but I suggest that the balance is about right. If the right hon. Gentleman does not withdraw his amendment, I fear that I must invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist it. I commend to the House Lords amendment No. 10 and the two amendments grouped with it.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: I am concerned about the amendment and the clause. This is an encroachment on personal liberty, and I believe that to be dangerous.
If one examines the law in this country today, one finds that the police may not enter premises, whether it be for reasons of drug offences or anything else, without first obtaining a warrant. In the amendment there is an attack on the personal liberty of the individual. The old saying that an Englishman's home is his castle is under attack. In a day and age in which we hear so much about human rights, one wonders where such laws are taking us.
I shall give a hypothetical case to the Minister. What would happen if someone were speeding home in a motor car, managed to get into the driveway, left the car and entered the house? The police might force entry because they were suspicious, because the person was driving quickly, that he had had a certain amount to drink, but they might not be able to identify the person. Let us say that the husband, who had been at home drinking, came to the door, and his wife had been the offender driving the speeding vehicle. How would the police prove their case? What protection has the individual in such circumstances?
A dangerous precedent is being set, because it could be the thin end of the wedge. If we pass legislation such as this, are we embarking on a course that will mean that in the next Transport Bill, not just for three cases of suspicion, but for many cases of suspicion, the police will have right of entry? In the longer term we are in grave danger of opening the door that leads to all sorts of legislation which says that the police may enter, because we shall have set the precedent in this case.
There is also the question of an accident. What does "a serious accident" involve? Could it involve a bruise? I believe that the terminology would be difficult to probe. Therefore, in the circumstances, much as I wish to, I feel that I cannot support the Government on this issue.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: My main fear is not just about the pursuit by a police constable of an allegedly drunken driver but about the consequences of that.
I shall give one case as an example. A person was rolling about in front of a garage fighting with a policeman after he had been suspected of having had too much to drink. There was no accident, but in the course of the skirmish the man was alleged to have bitten the policeman because he fiercely resented being pursued almost into his home. If the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) is not passed, one could presume that the policeman would be able to go into the man's premises because of his suspicions.
That case involved a West Indian family that has a high reputation in the local church. Those circumstances arose after what was supposed to be a farewell party because the family were emigrating to Canada. The outcome was that the Canadian authorities would not accept the man, he having been convicted not only of drunken driving but of assault on a policeman. The assault on the policeman was considered by the Canadian authorities to be the graver of the two offences, yet one offence arose out of the other.
Such circumstances may arise. My right hon. Friend's amendment is perfectly reasonable, because none of us would want to protect someone who had caused accidents as a result of having too much to drink, even to the extent of going into the home in such circumstances. Cumulative effects may arise from such a situation. They are too dangerous for the House to permit the amendment to go through unamended.

Mr. Roger Moate: Having supported the original Bill on Second Reading and in Committee without this provision, it would be foolish at this stage for one to be dogmatic and say that the Lords amendment is absolutely right. It is a difficult matter. There is no doubt that an amendment that extends the rights of the police to enter the home of a motorist is an important matter and one that the House must take seriously. In all of us it raises conflicting opinions. We all still like to cherish the notion, which is probably based on an illusion, that the Englishman's home is his castle, but, on the other hand, most of us want to see effective measures taken against drunken driving. Therefore, I recognise that there is a real conflict.
It is with a sense of relief that I notice an almost total absence of lawyers from the debate.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am here.

Mr. Moate: I hope that I have not provoked my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). I apologise—I had not seen him sitting there. I should have thought that a question of such significance would present a feast day for lawyers. It is a difficult question for all of us. It would be foolish to be dogmatic.
It is equally important to recognise that we are not debating a fundamental matter of principle, because we are debating the amendment proposed by the Opposition. It does not go the whole way to counter the proposal to give extra powers to the police. All that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) proposes is that those powers should be exercised only in limited circumstances. I wonder whether his amendment is practical. I should be interested to know whether he thinks that it can be operated. We are not debating whether the police have the right to enter a man's home and all the things mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—bashing down the door, using force and upsetting the motorist. The right hon. Gentleman concedes that that can be done, but only if the police officer has reasonable cause to suspect that there has been an accident which the motorist has failed to report and which involved injury.
I wonder how practical the amendment is, because, presumably, in many circumstances the policeman must respond instantaneously when he sees a drunken driver and an accident occurring. He does not have time to stop to investigate the nature of the accident. He must pursue the motorist quickly to his home. How can he make a prompt judgment on whether there was an injury—it does not matter whether it was a serious or a minor one—to find out whether he has the right and reasonable suspicion to pursue the motorist to his home? If, in the interests of the safety of the public, we are asking the police to stop drunken drivers, we must give them reasonable powers to pursue that person to his home and make an arrest if necessary.

Mr. Booth: I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the Opposition amendment deals not only with an issue of principle but, as we can see under section 5, with the right to enter a home in a case where a driver has been involved in an accident in which someone is injured. We are not objecting to the ability of a policeman, under schedule 8, to enter a home for the purposes of taking a breath test. It cannot be said that by our amendment we are making the police ineffective. We are saying that the police must go through the procedure that gives a right of privacy and protects the civil liberty of privacy in the home.

Mr. Moate: That is a fair point. The House generally seems to accept the principle that the police will have the wider power to pursue a suspected drunken driver to his home and to enter that home by force if necessary in certain circumstances. It is important to recognise that there is no fundamental difference between hon. Members who have spoken so far. In the interests of trying to make these new drink driving laws effective, this is something which, reluctantly, we must accept. We can accept it largely because it will happen only in a very few cases. I should be interested to learn just how often this has caused policemen difficulties. I suspect that it is rare for a man to drink so much that he cannot find his way home, put the car in the garage and get indoors before the police have caught him. That must be a rare event.
Circumstances of that sort will not apply to the vast majority of law-abiding motorists. It is something with which we should agree. We should therefore accept the Lords amendment and reject the Opposition amendment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I did not intend to intervene, but there are several points that I should like to raise on behalf of my constituents. Most of them appreciate the work done by the police, but there are some occasions when it is felt that the police are over-zealous. That occurs in parts of my constituency where there is a fairly high proportion of flats in which parties often take place in the evening. From time to time I receive complaints from constituents who feel that they are put under unfair pressure.
What would happen if, under this section, someone disappears into a block of flats? Would that give the police the right to look in each of those flats? If so, how will the police exercise that discretion? If, at two o'clock in the morning, someone disappears into a large block of flats, it may be difficult for the police to decide which of the flats that person entered. If the police knock on the doors and are told that the person is not there, do they go away or do they insist on looking in those flats? That could cause considerable distress and upset to a person not involved in the suspected offence.
It also places the police in a difficulty. If they see someone disappearing into the front entrance of a block of flats, it is difficult for them to tell which of the flats that person has entered. It will be even harder in my constituency where there are houses in multiple occupation where it is often difficult to ascertain which rooms belong to each flat.
I accept that the police have a difficult task. There are occasions when some of my constituents feel aggrieved. At the moment, the problem usually arises where there is a suspicion that drugs might be on the premises and where the police decide to search for them.
What safeguards will there be in carrying out the requirements of this section so that the police do not cause unnecessary hardship to people who are in no way involved? Sadly, on some occasions the police have caused upset to some people, particularly late at night, as a result of their existing powers to enter premises, which has led to the police forfeiting the good will of some of my constituents. There could well be a problem about flats and houses in multiple occupation. Problems could also arise in other areas when it is unclear which house a policeman ought to enter to look for the suspect.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I do not think that the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) are well based. He was talking about the world before police cars were in touch with a computer giving the address of the car owner. It is no longer the case that a person must be pursued home by a policeman or he is lost and gone forever. So long as they can identify the car, the police call back to base, and within 30 seconds they receive an answer from the computer in Swansea. I therefore do not believe that there is a degree of urgency.
Moreover, if my hon. Friend remembers the pamphlet published by the British Medical Association before the breathalyser was first introduced, he will know that for about 40 minutes after a drink is consumed the alcohol concentration in the blood rises and then remains at a


plateau for about two hours before it starts to fall. Therefore, there is not a degree of urgency. Indeed, it could work the other way, because the delay in being breathalysed could result in a much greater concentration of alcohol being found in the blood than when the person was driving, possibly well below the limit.
The Opposition amendment does what most hon. Members would wish if they were present in the Chamber to hear its merit debated. It deals with a serious case where there has been an accident at which a driver has not stopped—because the policeman would have breathalysed him there and then if it was thought a reasonable thing to do—but has gone home or, rather, where the policeman believes he has gone home.
This is not a matter of seeing an event. It is measuring by breathalyser a concentration of alcohol in the blood which will not go away in a few minutes. We know that to be the case. If the case is serious, the constable can get a warrant, go into the premises concerned and get the person if he needs to. However, both the Opposition amendment and the Lords amendment are not about whether a police officer can go into someone's home to require him to take a breath test or arrest him. They are about whether the policeman should be able to do so without a warrant, and that is a different matter.
The argument advanced by the Government has tended to ignore that important premise. The Opposition amendment states that the offence must have been a visible event. Without that amendment it is possible that no offence would have occurred. Yet, the Government are asking us to allow a policeman to break the door and enter someone's home without a warrant. It is not reasonable to ask the House to do so, given that only one magistrate needs to be satisfied to sign a warrant to give the police officer such a power.
That protection of obtaining a warrant is still a valuable one to the citizen. I therefore ask my hon. and learned Friend to reconsider his position. I suspect that he has omitted to tax himself with that question, which is not whether a policeman in no circumstances should be able to enter someone's house but rather whether he should be able to do so without a warrant.

Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition amendment also allows that power of entry without a warrant?
In response to my hon. Friend's earlier remark, may I point out that the vast majority of cars in this country are purchased by companies? Presumably, therefore, any police inquiries through a computer will simply produce the name of a company, which will not help find the name and address of a person whom they suspect of drunken driving.

6 pm

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That may be, but, by the same argument, if the police follow the car to the door, they still know where they want to go. If they do not know the name of the person before they go into the house, they still do not know the name of the person who was driving the car.
The Opposition are saying that this power to enter without a warrant will be granted only if two things happen: if there has been an accident in which a person has been injured and if, subsidiary to that, police officers

have reasonable cause for believing that someone who was involved in that accident, and who did not stop to report it, has gone into his house.
The Opposition amendment is a reasonable compromise between the various opposing social needs. My right hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend would do well to consider the merit of that, rather than saying, in effect, "Let us just get the Lords amendments through and out of the way." I know that there are good reasons for wanting to get the Bill through tonight—excellent reasons concerning the precarious position of people who do not have driving licences and who are suffering great hardship. I have constituents in that position, too. However, that is not a reason for passing bad law, least of all when there is an opportunity, by accepting the Opposition amendment, to avoid doing that and to do what I believe both public opinion and the majority of hon. Members who are apprised of the argument would wish to do.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: With the leave of the House, may I first assure my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that the decision to invite the House to enact this law has not been lightly undertaken. As I said at the beginning of the debate, the Government and the House have spent a great deal of time considering the matter. I know from discussions that I have had thoughout the passage of the Bill that there are about as many opinions on the subject as there are individuals likely to take part in the discussion.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for showing that there are two sides of the picture, as I began by saying. There are some circumstances in which the police must have the power to arrest without a warrant. Indeed, they already have that power in a wide range of cases. It is not necessary to have a warrant to enter premises to effect an arrest for many serious offences. Under the Criminal Law Act 1967, that power is expressly given for more serious criminal offences.
Common sense in all these cases, including the breathalyser cases, leads one easily to foresee circumstances in which that power is needed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton said, one could ring up the Swansea computer, find out the driver's registered address and get a warrant to go there, or, if the police had followed him to certain premises, they could obtain a warrant and then go back and arrest him. But that supposes many things. The first is that the motorist has gone to his home or the place where the car is registered, or that if he has entered other premises he will stay there while the police go away and obtain a warrant. Those considerations in many criminal offences or serious traffic offences would bring about a situation in which the police could not enforce the law.
I do not think that my right hon. Friend, I or the Government in general have less sensitivity than those who have spoken about the rights of the individual. But there are serious aspects of the law that must be enforced. The Government's original proposals were severely criticised by the police and by liberal opinion outside as being far too lax. The police made a serious criticism of the provision as it was first drafted. I listened to my own chief constable of Nottinghamshire speaking on the radio as spokesman of the chief constables on traffic matters. He


said that we had created a nonsense. We were also criticised by The Guardian for having created a drunken drivers' charter in proposing the law as we have.
We are dealing with an aspect of the law that has been found defective by a wide range of opinion. I cited earlier one or two cases that had given rise to concern and led to Parliament being asked to clarify the matter. I should like to give a brief quotation from Lord Diplock's judgment in two cases—Finnigan v Sandiford and Clowser v Chaplin—in both of which the motorist stood in his own doorway, speaking to the policeman through an open door. As soon as he realised that he was in difficulties and might be breathalysed or arrested, he simply retreated inside the house and told the police to go away.
We are talking not about dramatic attacks by policemen through closed doors but simply about someone who realises that he is in trouble and who, over the garden hedge or standing inside his doorway, tells the police to go away. In the two cases that I have mentioned, both offenders were gloriously acquitted, thanks to the state of the law that we are now trying to rectify.
Lord Diplock, who is not an illiberal or unreasonable man, said that the reasoning of one of his colleagues
leads … to tie conclusion that once again the way in which the 'breathalyser' provision of the Road Traffic Act 1972 was drafted has enabled motorists to 'cock a snook' at the law.
The case in question was decided while the Bill was going through the House. Lord Diplock went on:
The revision of the breathalyser provisions is under consideration in the Transport Bill now before Parliament. It is for Parliament to make up its mind whether it wants this lamentable state of affairs to continue.
We are all sensitive about the rights of the individual, but we cannot allow it to continue to be possible for police to be ordered off any premises when investigating serious offences. We are not dealing simply with "home". We are talking about a policeman who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a motorist is
under influence of drink or drugs",
when the motorist happens to have reached the nearest premises, where, the proprietor or owner tells the police to go away and does not allow them to enter and effect an arrest.

Mr. Bendall: I think that I am correct in saying that if a motorist enters premises that are not his own he can be pursued by the police, because he is trespassing.

Mr. Clarke: Certainly not. The police may have a licence to enter premises for various purposes, but the moment the owner or anyone in a position to refuse them right of entry tells them to go away, they must do so. It could be the owner of a shop, a friend of the motorist whose house the motorist has happened to enter, of a farmer whose field the police have entered. They can be ordered to leave.

Mr. Booth: The amendment does not protect a person who enters a place other than his home. It protects him only in special circumstances in which he has gone into his own home.

Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman is taking me on to the Opposition amendment. Because my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton is concerned about the matter, he has been attracted by the amendment. I did not deal with it in sufficient detail when I spoke before.
The amendment tries to confine the provision when the motorist is in his own home to those cases, even drink and

drive cases, in which an accident has occurred. With everyone's approval, we have already covered accidents in breathalyser cases. There is the difficulty of defining what are "home" and "usual place of residence" for this purpose. With a bewildering range of the population, it is difficult to decide what is their "home" or "usual place of residence". The Opposition amendment says:
a person's home is his usual place of residence".
That is by no means an easy question to answer for many people. It is certainly not a question that can easily be answered by a policeman standing at the door of someone who is telling him to go away or who has a friend telling him to go away.
I pray in aid the example cited by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), of multi-occupied houses. The police could easily get themselves into difficulties, as could the courts in interpreting the law, if someone insisted that a certain place was his home, whereas in fact he had a range of residences, or was a visitor who happened to be living in a particular place at the time. Under the amendment, what is the position of someone who is away from his usual home for any length of time? He may be visiting somewhere and staying for a period that is not fixed. It is very difficult in many cases—probably in the case of Members of Parliament—to decide what is the "usual place of residence". It is arguable that some people have more than one place of residence.
The amendment also tries to tie the definition to cases in which there has been failure to report an accident. Failure to report an accident is not necessarily an offence. Injury accidents do not have to be reported by a driver unless he has not given his name and address to any person having reasonable grounds for requiring them. Even where the offence of failure to report has been committed, it is not normally possible to demonstrate that it has been committed until 24 hours after the accident, as the driver is allowed that period in which to report the accident. By that time, all traces of alcohol may have disappeared.
The amendment does not say to whom the accident has not been reported. It does not say that the person's involvement in the accident should have been while driving or being in charge of a vehicle that was involved. The reference to injury does not exclude injury to the driver himself. The amendment is therefore riddled with technical deficiencies.
I therefore commend to the House the proposal that we should give to the police the power of entry to effect an arrest in the comparatively serious cases in which a person's driving is affected, because he is unfit or his driving is impaired by drink or drugs, or to personal injury accidents where power of entry exists to require a breath test. That is the Government's recommended solution. It is clearly embodied in the Lords amendments.
I know that the Opposition do not like necessarily to accept the opinion of another place, and neither do we. We are all conscious of the rights of this House. Nevertheless, the Law Lords have been much agitated by this matter, and the amendments were accepted without challenge in another place. I believe that it would be unwise now to venture into the Opposition amendment and to return to a position in which I believe that we should be confining the powers of the police unnecessarily.
As Lord Diplock said in the case that I mentioned, motorists would be able to cock a snook at the law. Moreover, the average member of the public would not feel that we were protecting him properly if, when the


police had reasonable grounds to suspect that a person had been guilty of drinking and driving or being drunk in charge, the driver could stand behind his own hedge, or could stand behind a friend's hedge and get the owner to tell the police to go away and nothing further could be done to effect an arrest or to enforce the law.
These are not draconian measures. We have expressly ruled out what some enthusiasts of breathalyser law would have liked, namely, giving a wide power of entry in all circumstances to carry out breath tests. We have confined it to personal injury cases. We are not interested in allowing entry in cases where the only offence is that of speeding, as in the case cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall). We expressly do not wish to provide the power of entry in those comparatively minor cases. We have chosen the serious cases, and this is one of them. I therefore believe that the Opposition amendment is misconceived.

Mr. Booth: With the leave of the House, first, I fully accept the Under-Secretary's statement that he has given serious consideration to this matter. I do not allege any failure to take the matter seriously or to give considerable time to it. The debate has shown, however, that there is a grave concern about how one strikes a balance between effective enforcement of legislation passed by the House and respect for the privacy of a person's home in circumstances in which there is no proof that the person has committed an offence, that is to say, in the difficult area in which a constable seeks to enforce the law on the basis of suspicion. In this instance we are talking not about a single suspicion, but about two suspicions, either or both of which may prove to be wrong.
The first point on which I seriously disagree with the Under-Secretary is on what he says about the power being limited to serious cases. The Lords amendment does not limit to serious cases the power of arrest without warrant, the police having effected a forced entry into a person's home. That power is given to the constable in respect of any offence under section 5 of the 1972 Act. I believe that the majority of the constituents whom we represent would accept that a wide range of seriousness or comparative lack of it is involved in offences under section 5, from the case of the person who is technically in charge of the vehicle because he still has the keys although he has not been near it, to that of the person who has driven when he was clearly unfit to do so, and in a dangerous way. The Lords amendment is therefore very sweeping and is not limited to serious cases.
6.15 pm
The amendment does not impinge upon that part of the Bill which determines the circumstances in which a constable may require a person to take a test. That is an important part of the Bill, but the amendment does not impinge upon it. I do not object to the Minister referring to it, because that is another area in which difficult decisions have to be made between the power of enforcement and the civil right or the right to privacy of the citizen. In that area, views have changed. I do not complain about that. It is right that the Government should reconsider their position and change it in the course of the Bill if they are persuaded by argument.
I deal now with the right to require breath tests. When the Bill was first introduced, as the Under-Secretary fairly

said, a person was protected from the requirement to take the test if he went on to any premises where he could hold that the constable was trespassing. We objected to that. We said that the power was not strong enough. In a sense, the amendments have strengthened it. But if those powers are not strong enough, the correct way to deal with the matter is in the section dealing with the right to require a person to take the test. Once a test has been required, it will show how much drink the person has had. The court may then judge whether he was fit to drive. If the person is found guilty, the court will issue a warrant for his arrest if he has refused to make himself available to the court.
It is important to recognise that the effectiveness of the law in respect of the right to require a test is not impinged upon by the amendment. The amendment impinges upon the right of a constable without a warrant to break down the door of a person's home and to seek out that person because he suspects that he is there and has committed an offence under section 5. That is the right conferred by the Lords amendment.
Whether the way in which we have qualified that is the right one is a matter for the House to judge. We have chosen to qualify it with reference to a person suspected of having been involved in an accident in which somebody is injured. I accept the Under-Secretary's observation that we have not excluded the driver himself.
Under our amendment, if the driver were injured he could be held liable to submit himself or to report the accident, in which case he could be required to take the test. I accept that. That is the scope of the amendment and in no way do we seek to hide it. We believe, nevertheless, that a distinction can be drawn at that point.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Did my right hon. Friend read the recent report of a prominent person who is known to all of us—I shall not mention his name—who was stopped by the police near here and who refused to give a specimen of his blood or his urine? He refused to take a test, but merely gave his name. He has now been charged. Surely a person doing that should have the same right in his own house. If it was sufficient for that person to give his name on the road, it should be sufficient for me if a policeman comes to my house. What is the difference? Why should the driver on the road be treated differently from the driver in his house?

Mr. Booth: I agree with my hon. Friend. If a person has a right to refuse on the road, he should have the same right in his own home, but the Bill does not concede the right of a person to refuse to take the test on the road. On the contrary, he will be obliged to take such a test. The amendments to schedule 8 relate to the circumstances in which he might have the right to refuse in his own home only or in which a constable may require him to open his door or have it broken open for a test to be taken. We shall therefore decide those matters later.

Mr. Bendall: I return to what concerns me, which is that if there is a chase by the police and a suspected person gets into his home, how will the police prove who was the driver of the vehicle without having had a clear look at the suspect? A chap could, for example send his wife to the door and say that she was the driver of the vehicle. We have heard of suspects swapping driving seats after accidents and other stratagems. The situation is open to abuse and is dangerous.

Mr. Booth: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point as relevant to whether one should proceed on suspicion, as opposed to arresting a person who has committed an offence. We have to make a distinction. Where there is a strong suspicion of someone having committed a serious offence, a right of entry may be granted even without a warrant. However, on the basis of the arguments that we have heard so far, unless there is a serious suspicion on the part of the constable that a person has evaded reporting an accident I do not accept that the constable should have the power, without a warrant, to enter that person's home to arrest him. The power to require drivers to take a breathalyser test is another and important matter on which we should give police proper powers.
The power to arrest without warrant, which is contained in section 5, is not limited by the Lords amendment, and it should not commend itself to the House. Therefore, I cannot respond to the Under-Secretary's request that we withdraw our amendment.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment he made:—

The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 168.

Division No. 291]
[6.22 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
George, Bruce


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Graham, Ted


Bendall, Vivian
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Home Robertson, John


Bradley, Tom
Homewood, William


Buchan, Norman
Hooley, Frank


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Hoyle, Douglas


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cohen, Stanley
Kerr, Russell


Coleman, Donald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lambie, David


Cook, Robin F.
Leighton, Ronald


Cowans, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Crowther, J. S.
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Cryer, Bob
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McCartney, Hugh


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dalyell, Tam
McElhone, Frank


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Deakins, Eric
McKelvey, William


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Marks, Kenneth


Dixon, Donald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dobson, Frank
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dormand, Jack
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dubs, Alfred
Mikardo, Ian


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eastham, Ken
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


English, Michael
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Evans, John (Newton)
Morton, George


Field, Frank
Newens, Stanley


Fitt, Gerard
O'Halloran, Michael


Flannery, Martin
O'Neill, Martin


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Palmer, Arthur


Forrester, John
Park, George


Foster, Derek
Parker, John


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Prescott, John


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)





Richardson, Jo
Tilley, John


Robertson, George
Tinn, James


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Rooker, J. W.
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Welsh, Michael


Sheerman, Barry
Whitehead, Phillip


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Whitlock, William


Silverman, Julius
Wigley, Dafydd


Skinner, Dennis
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Soley, Clive
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Stallard, A. W.
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Winnick, David


Stoddart, David



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Mr. James Hamilton


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Hannam, John


Alexander, Richard
Haselhurst, Alan


Arnold, Tom
Hawkins, Paul


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Heddle, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Henderson, Barry


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Beith, A. J.
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hooson, Tom


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hordern, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Blackburn, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Bright, Graham
Jessel, Toby


Brinton, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Brittan, Leon
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Latham, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Lawrence, Ivan


Bulmer, Esmond
Le Marchant, Spencer


Butcher, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Chapman, Sydney
Loveridge, John


Churchill, W. S.
Luce, Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lyell, Nicholas


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McCrindle, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Macfarlane, Neil


Cope, John
MacGregor, John


Costain, Sir Albert
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Cranborne, Viscount
Major, John


Crouch, David
Marland, Paul


Dorrell, Stephen
Marlow, Tony


Dover, Denshore
Mates, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Mather, Carol


Eggar, Tim
Mawby, Ray


Elliott, Sir William
Mellor, David


Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fell, Anthony
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Moate, Roger


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Molyneaux, James


Forman, Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Morgan, Geraint


Fox, Marcus
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Goodhew, Victor
Murphy, Christopher


Goodlad, Alastair
Myles, David


Gow, Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Gower, Sir Raymond
Needham, Richard


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Neubert, Michael


Greenway, Harry
Newton, Tony


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Normanton, Tom


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Onslow, Cranley


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Osborn, John


Grylls, Michael
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Gummer, John Selwyn
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Parris, Matthew






Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stevens, Martin


Pawsey, James
Stradling Thomas, J.


Penhaligon, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tebbit, Norman


Prior, Rt Hon James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Rathbone, Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Trippier, David


Renton, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Waddington, David


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wakeham, John


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Waller, Gary


Rossi, Hugh
Warren, Kenneth


Rost, Peter
Watson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wheeler, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Whitney, Raymond


Sims, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wolfson, Mark


Sproat, Iain



Squire, Robin
Tellers for the Noes:


Stainton, Keith
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Stanbrook, Ivor
and Mr. Donald Thompson.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being half-past Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question on Lords amendment No. 10.

Lords amendment No. 10, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I am now required by the Order to put the Question on the motion to agree with the Lords in amendment No. 11, the remaining Lords amendment in the group.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause A

COMPULSORY WEARING OF SEAT BELTS

Lords amendment: No. 12, after clause 26, insert—

"A.—(1) After section 33 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 there shall be inserted the following section:—

"Wearing of seat belts.

33A.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, persons who are driving or riding in motor vehicles on a road to wear seat belts of such description as may be prescribed.

(2) Regulations under this section—

(a) may make different provision in relation to different classes of vehicles, different descriptions of persons and different circumstances;
(b) shall include exceptions for—

(i) the users of vehicles constructed or adapted for the delivery of goods or mail to consumers or addressees, as the case may be, while engaged in making local rounds of deliveries;
(ii) the drivers of vehicles while performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing;
(iii) any person holding a valid certificate signed by a medical practitioner to the effect that it is inadvisable on medical grounds for him to wear a seat belt;
(c) may make any prescribed exceptions subject to such conditions as may be prescribed; and
(d) may prescribe cases in which a fee of a prescribed amount may be charged on an application for any certificate required as a condition of any prescribed exception.

(3) Any person who drives or rides in a motor vehicle in contravention of regulations under this

section shall be guilty of an offence; but notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law no person other than the person actually committing the contravention shall be guilty of an offence by reason of the contravention.

(4) If the holder of any such certificate as is referred to in subsection (2) (b) above is informed by a constable that he may be prosecuted for an offence under subsection (3) above, he shall not, in proceedings for that offence, be entitled to rely on the exception afforded to him by the certificate unless—

(a) it is produced to the constable at the time he is so informed; or
(b) within five days after the date on which he is so informed, it is produced at such police station as he may have specified to the constable."

(5) Regulations under this section requiring the wearing of seat belts by persons riding in motor vehicles shall not apply to children under the age of fourteen years (to whom the next following section applies).".

(2) In section 169 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (forgery of documents etc.) in subsection (2) (documents to which that section applies) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
(bb) any certificate required as a condition of any exception prescribed under section 33A of this Act".

(3) In section 199 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (exercise of regulation-making powers and Parliamentary control) the following subsection is inserted after subsection (2)—
(2A) The following provisions apply to regulations made under section 33A above—

(a) when the Secretary of State proposes to make the first regulations under that section he shall lay before each House of Parliament a statement explaining his proposals; and
(b) no draft of those first regulations shall be laid before Parliament for approval under subsection (4) below until after the expiration of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the statement was laid (or, if the statement was laid on different days, with the later of the two days); and
(c) at the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the first regulations under that section came into force, all regulations in force under that section shall expire unless their continuation in force has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."

(4) In Part I of Schedule 4 to the Road Traffic Act 1972 (prosecution and punishment of offences) after the entry relating to section 33 there shall be inserted the following entry:—

"33A. Driving or riding in a motor vehicle in contravention of regulations requiring wearing of seat belts.
Summarily. £50.
Sections 181 and 183 apply."."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 24, 60 and 61, and all the amendments in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).

Mr. Lawrence: This is one of those subjects which stir feelings deeply and genuinely, regardless of party politics. It touches upon freedom, and all of us have been sent to this place to protect, as far as we might, the individual liberties of our constituents against the remorseless hunger of a State and bureaucratic machine trying to gobble it up.
That is why those of us on the Conservative Benches—even though our constituents will probably forgive us less readily if we let the Government mess us around—have no monopoly of conscience in the matter. It touches also upon road safety and the lives of our constituents, whichever party we represent. But divisions


exist, will become evident in the course of the evening, and will resolve themselves finally in the Lobbies later tonight.
I should like to make two observations before I develop my case. First, we who act against compulsion are often called the anti-seat belt lobby or brigade. We are not, alas, a brigade, otherwise the result of the debate would be a foregone conclusion in the Lobbies. We are not even a lobby in the sense that we are campaigning to change anything. We are not. We are arguing to keep the legal status quo. We are defending the existing right to wear or not wear a seat belt as the individual thinks best. More importantly, we are not anti-seat belts. We are, on the contrary, overwhelmingly in favour of them.
We agree with the medical profession's powerful lobby that the wearing of seat belts is far more likely than not to save the life of the driver or passenger in a car, and to avoid serious injuries. Our argument is not over whether we should wear seat belts but whether it is either right or sensible for the State to force everyone to wear them.
My second observation is that those who support compulsion often greatly overstate their case. Their case, moderately put, is a respectable one, but all too often—whether it is because of some shocking personal or family experience or just a lack of time to consider the statistical evidence—the case for compulsion is wildly exaggerated.
We were assured by the mover of the amendment in the other place that up to 700 deaths and 11,000 serious injuries could be avoided each year by compulsion; that the numbers wearing seat belts would go up from 30 per cent. to 80 or even 90 per cent.; that the odds against the wearing of a seat belt causing death or an accident are 1,000 to one.
As a result of those assurances, the vote in the other place for compulsion was 132 to 92. As the British Medical Journal explained, there was
good whipping here by the BMA".
I do not know whether the Whips for compulsion in the House tonight will turn out to be as good as they were in the other place, but the circular letter which those who were whipping sent out to the faithful, calling upon them to vote, after a couple of spelling mistakes and a misreading of the time limit for the initial period of the operation of the Bill, goes on to declare:
You will know only too well how many lives, dreadful injuries and desolated families can be saved by this simple measure".
These promises have been made before. Doubtless they were made before the other countries in the Western world embraced compulsion. But we now have some solid evidence that we have never had before. In earlier debates we have heard talk of some figures from Australia that were airily waved about as supporting the compulsion case, but we were never given any statistics from the many other countries experiencing compulsion. Now we have just that. We have a comparative study of road fatality statistics in no fewer than 18 countries, covering about 80 per cent. of the world's car population.
Examining the national statistics which have not been available earlier, Mr. John Adams of University College, London, in January this year published his findings.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The only one that the hon. and learned Gentleman can dredge up.

Mr. Lawrence: It is a darned sight more than anything that has ever been dredged up by the arguers for

compulsion on the Opposition Benches, who have never presented this House with a comprehensive analysis of the statistics.

Mr. Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Lawrence: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker. However, I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I continue.

Mr. Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Lawrence: Mr. John Adams of University College, London, compared Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Holland, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Israel, Australia and New Zealand—all countries with a compulsory seat belt law that is enforced—with Italy, the United States of America, Japan and Great Britain, where there is either no compulsory seat belt law or it is not enforced.
Mr. Adams' findings are astonishing and unexpected. Although most of the countries experienced a substantial decrease in road accident fatalities in the years following the 1973 oil crisis, the decrease was greater in those countries without a compulsory seat belt law than in those countries with one.

Mr Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman will have to carry on—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Mitchell: I wondered whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was giving way.

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman can carry oil wondering. I should like to complete my case. The promise of massive reductions in the number of deaths because of compulsion simply has not materialised. There is no evidence to show that seat belt compulsion—taking accidents overall—saves lives; nor does it reduce the overall number of injuries. However, the inherent unreliability of comparative statistics makes any positive conclusion about injuries impossible.
That survey has put the cat among the pigeons. Those who have stood up publicly for compulsion have some understandable reluctance to stand on their heads in public, whatever the evidence may be. Others, less publicly committed, will want to stop and reconsider the matter. The first attack made on Mr. Adams' inconvenient findings was that he had not substantiated his tentative hypothesis that the reason why there seemed to he no reduction in the death rate, and probably an increase after compulsion, was that
protecting car occupants from the consequences of bad driving encourages bad driving.
As a rock climber may take more risks when wearing a harness, so a car driver may do so. That attack was irrelevant. Mr. Adams was only describing the statistics. He did not set out to explain them and still less to prove an explanation. It is for all of us to consider why those statistics produce that astonishing result. However, it is beyond argument that they produce it.
The next attack came from Lord Nugent, who proposed the amendment in the other place. On 11 June—only six weeks ago—he said that Mr. Adams' mistake was to


muddle up pedestrians, cyclists, motor cyclists and so on with the only relevant victims—drivers and front seat passengers. I hear notes of assent and support for that criticism from Opposition Members.

Mr. George Foulkes: Nonsense!

Mr. Lawrence: I hope that we shall hear some constructive speeches from Opposition Members, rather than "Nonsense!"
Lord Nugent's criticism of Mr. Adams was patent rubbish since the survey and its appendix contained three graphs, giving information about car occupant fatalities in Sweden and in seven EEC countries. Nevertheless, the criticism was repeated by Dr. Murray MacKay in a letter to The Times on 11 June. Mr. Adams replied, pointing out the error of his critics in The Times in a letter of 16 June. That seems to have made no difference. Once some people have made up their minds, they will not change them, whatever the facts.
On 26 June, the motoring correspondent of The Times repeated the error. Once again, the patient Mr. Adams drew the attention of The Times to the error and once again, the correction was ignored. The leader in The Times stated:
Dr. Adams fails to distinguish sufficiently between all road user casualties and those among car occupants.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Adams has produced 57 graphs. He concludes:
Nowhere in all this data can there be found any evidence of the enormous beneficial effect promised by the advocates of legislation. On the contrary the data persistently suggests that the effect of the legislation, if there is one, is perverse.
There, for the moment, the evidence rests.
6.45 pm
The survey means that when we are told—as I confidently expect to be told by some Opposition Members—that in return for surrendering no freedom that is worth talking about the House will, at one legislative stroke, save tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of thousands of terrible injuries and that all that is needed to achieve that miracle is the acceptance of this amendment, we must stop and think. If only it were all that easy.
The survey also means that the high social price of compulsion can no longer be weighed in the scales against the substantial saving of human life. Nor can it any longer be said that we should give up even a little of our freedom and that we should not worry about the other objections to compulsion, because of the massive saving of life that will result.
What is the social price that we are called upon to pay for compulsion? There is the high price of surrendering a parcel of our individual freedom. It amazes me that Parliament seems to pay little regard for individual freedom although there is great enthusiasm for international human rights. However, generations earlier than mine held the price of individual freedom to be so precious as to be worth laying down life for. Some ask what principle of freedom a seat belt law would offend. My answer is the principle that we have a right not to be made into criminals if our actions are directly aimed at hurting only ourselves. Of course, the harm that we do

ourselves may indirectly harm others. Our families will suffer. The taxpayer may—although not necessarily—have to foot the medical bill.
Until the law made crash helmets compulsory—two wrongs do not make a right—it was never thought to be a proper function of the criminal law to outlaw self-harm. It is no crime deliberately to kill oneself, to commit suicide, but it will become a crime not to protect oneself against being killed accidentally.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Will my hon. and learned Friend bear it in mind that it is within recent memory that suicide ceased to be a crime?

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for drawing our attention to that point. I am sure that hon. Members will digest it and see its significance.
There are other questions of principle. Some people undoubtedly die because they are strapped into car seats from which they might have escaped. We can all give examples from what someone has told us or from our experience. However, the question is whether we are to be forced by the criminal law to do something that might kill us. The RAC thinks not. That is a substantial reason why the RAC is against compulsion. Indeed, most people would think not.
If the principle is to be that people must be protected against themselves whenever families or taxpayers have to bear the indirect cost, why pick arbitrarily on the motorist? With as much reason the State might ban boxers, wrestlers, rock climbers, pot holers, free-fall parachutists, racing drivers and motor cyclists. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) were here I might add that the State might even ban yachtsmen.
Britain has the lowest road accident death rate in the EEC without having compulsory seat belts. However, since more pedestrians than drivers are killed in urban areas, a case could be made for forcing pedestrians to wear crash helmets and protective clothing. If the principle is to be that people must be protected against themselves when more than a few people are at risk, how long will it be before the lives of 50,000 smokers per annum and of tens of thousands of alcholics could be saved by making their enjoyments criminal? The end of this relentless enthusiasm of do-gooders to restrict our freedom could be a Britain in which few people would care to live.
The second element of high social cost could be the harm done to the rule of law by a criminal offence which could not be properly enforced. The problem is not that we should inevitably need more police on traffic duty, more courts in which to process the thousands of additional prosecutions and more operating costs. The real concern is the harm that such a law could do to the respect in which the motorists, numbering half the population, hold our laws and those who have to enforce them. If the proportion of seat belt wearers rose from 33 per cent. at present to the 80 per cent., forceast by the proponents of compulsion, there would be 20 per cent. or 26 million drivers evading it. We would make over 5 million criminals; people who would no longer think that it was always necessary for the criminial law to be obeyed.
Exemptions to such a law are necessary. Some appear in the Lords amendment. To be fair they should include the too fat, the too tall, the too short, the too thin, the too pregnant, the too claustrophobic and the too crippled. How would a policeman stopping a car for that offence know


in advance whether the driver or the passenger is exempt? How often will it be alleged that a police officer at night or in busy traffic was mistaken in believing that a seat belt was not being worn? How often would a police officer be right, only to find that a seat belt had been hastily fastened before he spoke to the driver? Whatever the circumstances, countless cars would be stopped unnecessarily, there would be far more arguments between policemen and motorists, there would be an inevitable increase in the allegations of police harassment—all at a time when the public image of the police has become an exceedingly sensitive matter.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: What my hon. Friend has said were the grounds on which the chief constable of the Devon and Cornwall constabulary recommended that we should oppose compulsory seat belts. He is concerned for the prosecutions made in good faith but in error, which would harm relations between the police and the public.

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful for that piece of local evidence, because, althought many of us have our knowledge and experience of that, the more there is about the more important it is that we defeat the amendment.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As there will be an extra burden on the police if we pass the measure tonight, does my hon. and learned Friend recommend that we recruit more police specially to carry out this burden? If not, does he suggest that they should be taken off other duties, and which duties should those be? I think that would be a burden that the police would very much not wish to have.

Mr. Lawrence: I hope that the amendment will not become part of the law, so the question is hypothetical. When relations between blacks and whites in our society and between police and civilians, are, to say the least, delicate, now is not the time to start giving more opportunity for dispute and controversy.
The reply which is sometimes given, that the law would not need to be enforced, is absurd. Making laws for which there is no effective sanction is not only a complete waste of time, because no one will observe them, but brings the law into disrepute. That is one of the important reasons why we should be responsible about our actions in this place. Small wonder that policemen and lawyers are filled with apprehension about the good sense of the law that makes seat bells compulsory, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said. It is hardly surprising that recent Transport and Road Research Laboratory polls have shown that almost half the motoring public is against it. What precedent is there—

Mr. Foulkes: More than half is in favour.

Mr. Lawrence: Almost half the motoring public are against it. What precedent is there for the creation of a crime when it is known in advance that its creation is opposed by so large a proportion of the British people? Where else have we ever made a law which we have known before we passed it would be so strongly opposed by the people who sent us here?
Two things are clear from this reaction by the public. First, the public reaction would have been even stronger if those polled had known what the London university evidence has told us, because they made their decision on the basis that, naturally, seat belts saved an enormous number of lives and serious injuries. Secondly, a law

which does not have the overwhelming consent of the people ought never to be put on the statute book. The rug seems to have been pulled from under the feet of those who believe that there is substantial statistical evidence to prove that compulsion saves lives.
Because of the fears and apprehensions that we must have about the impossibility of enforcing the law properly, sooner or later we must do more than mouth platitudes about the need to protect individual liberty against the encroaching power of the State. Here is as important a place as any to start doing that. Because a massive proportion of the British public to whom the law would apply is opposed to compulsion we should reject the Lords amendment. Let us say to those ill-informed, illiberal do-gooders "Belt up yourselves if you like, but for goodness sake leave us alone."

Mr. David Ennals: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot do that. I have proposed the Question.

Mr. Ennals: My hope is that the House will agree with the Lords in the said amendment. I want to deal with each of the criticisms that have been made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), but perhaps I should make one or two comments in advance.
This is the eighth time in the last 10 years that there have been attempts to introduce legislation to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory for drivers and front seat passengers. In the last six years the House has voted four times with substantial majorities in favour and on the last three occasions with majorities of roughly 100 in favour. I welcome today's opportunity for the House to express its will.
There are four aspects of the Lords proposals which I believe should allay most of the fears that have been expressed by the public. I shall discuss the fears expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment. The first is that there must be some exemptions. I am sure that that is correct. We cannot, at this stage, specify them, but the Secretary of State must specify them so that we can consider them. For example, it would be absurd if those who deliver milk had to put on seat belts every time they moved from house to house. That applies also to people with medical certificates which expressly say that it would not be in their medical interests—be they minute, enormous, pregnant, or whatever condition they may have—to wear belts. The medical profession must be consulted.
Secondly, the proposed legislation should be laid three months before it is voted upon in the House. That would give us an opportunity for consultation. It would be a wise provision to enable consultation to be carried out.
Thirdly, there should be positive approval by both Houses. Fourthly, conditions should be reviewed in three years' time so that the measures that we are taking now are not measures to which the House is for ever bound. We should be able to reach conclusions about whether we were right or wrong.

Mr. Barry Henderson: The point that I want to raise relates to medical exemptions. The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) suggested that


there should be a variety of medical exemptions—for example, ladies of ample proportions—but, from his experiences as a Minister responsible for the Health Service, does he accept that there must be much discussion with the medical profession before we can be sure that it will undertake such an obligation?

Mr. Ennals: I did not suggest how wide the exemption should be, but I agree that there must be consultation with the medical profession about the exemptions. One great advantage is that the medical profession is overwhelmingly in favour of the legislation. It awaits the moment when the Secretary of State for Transport begins those discussions.
I shall now reply to some of the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Burton. Of course there is a freedom argument. We already, in our own way and in our interests and in the interests of the public, accept numerous infringements of what the hon. and learned Gentleman might call absolute freedom. For example, why should we have compulsory insurance? That is a denial of our freedom. Why must we have a driving licence? That is a denial of our freedom. Why must we pay vehicle excise duty or have MOT tests? Why should it matter whether the tyres or brakes on our vehicles are effective? We have accepted all those rules.

7 pm

Mr. Lawrence: They all involve other people.

Mr. Ennals: I shall come to that. Those who do not want to accept limitations on freedom have the freedom not to drive or not to drive in the front seat of a vehicle. Society has an obligation to drivers, passengers and their relatives and to the public. The victim of an accident who, through failure to wear a seat belt, becomes unconscious and has no control over his vehicle, might cause death and injury to others. He might injure other drivers, passengers in his car or pedestrians. The House has an obligation to protect the community interest.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, there is the extraordinary argument by Dr. John Adams of University College, London that the wearing of seat belts could lead to a false sense of complacency. The hypothesis is that
protecting an occupant from the consequences of bad driving encourages bad driving.
There is no evidence of that. No evidence has been advanced, even by Dr. John Adams. He has produced a document that is riddled with inaccuracies.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It would have saved time if the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) had given way earlier on this point. It would detain the House for too long to go into the statistical arguments against Dr. John Adams' conclusions, but one is:
The evidence that the use of a seat belt greatly improves a car occupant's chances of surviving a crash appears to be overwhelming. That a person travelling at speed inside a hard metal shell will stand a better chance of surviving a crash if he is restrained from rattling about inside the shell is both intuitively obvious and supported by an impressive body of empirical evidence.

Mr. Ennals: That was a helpful intervention. A careful study has been made of the conclusions and supposed statistics in Dr. Adams' study. The document is extraordinary for a research worker. It has been analysed carefully. I am grateful to the Royal Society for the

Prevention of Accidents for analysing it. It has collected evidence country by country. It has analysed statistics here and in Sweden, Norway, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Finland and Spain. They were dealt with by Dr. Adams in his paper.
RoSPA points out the failure of Dr. Adams to get his statistics right. In some cases he made comparisons between two years when in the second year the legislation had not begun to apply. I have had correspondence with many parts of the world from people who wish to prove to me, as I hope to prove to the House, that that piece of research was, as I have said before, bogus. Dr. Adams might have intended to do well. Talk about do-gooders. He might be a do-gooder, but he did not do a good job on research. I am grateful to RoSPA for doing the study.
Another argument is that in a few situations—and there are some—it is harmful to wear a seat belt. People say that they know of incidents when, if they or their friend had been wearing a seat belt, they would have suffered serious injury. That was dealt with convincingly in a powerful letter in The Times today by Sir Alan Parks, president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England and his colleagues in Edinburgh and Glasgow. They said:
On the question of injury incurred, in a very small number of cases, as a direct result of the wearing of seat belts, we can only ask what reason there can be in incurring a huge risk in order to avoid a very small one. The answer to this objection is to bring our influence to bear on the development of better and safer restraints, and improved and standardised release-mechanisms.
I hope that we shall do that when the Bill is passed. I should like a common form of seat belt. That quotation is from people who are committed in favour of the proposal.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind the careful analysis of 20,000 accidents at Wexham Park hospital near Slough? Not one could be found where seat belt wearing caused any damage.

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We must recognise that there are individual cases, but the conclusion of the surgeons who deal with cases in hospitals is that it affects only a small minority.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton talked about the attitude of the police and the difficulties of enforcement. That was dealt with effectively by Mr. Roger Birch, the honorary secretary of the traffic committee of the council of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland in The Times today. He said that
compulsion would be unlikely to lose us many friends for the following reasons: first, it is within our experience that a growing proportion of drivers are aware of their increasing chance of being involved in a fatal or serious accident, and would welcome a reduction of this risk.
Secondly, the law will to a great extent be self-enforcing as a large majority of the motoring public do not intentionally flout the law.
I believe that. He continued:
Finally, experience has shown that in dealing with this type of offence a friendly word of advice, or where appropriate a more cautionary letter, usually achieves the desired result, with prosecution very much the last resort.
That is a powerful argument.

Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ennals: I shall not give way again. I have given way several times. Many other hon. Members wish to speak.
If anybody says that that is a fallacious argument, he should remember that it is a fallacious argument developed entirely on behalf of the chief constables of the country.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton must have forgotten just who are the supporters of the Lords amendment. It has the strongest approval, not only of the Automobile Association but of the Royal Scottish Automobile Club, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Surgeons of England, the Royal College of Surgeons of Scotland, more recently, the Conference of Medical Royal Colleges and their Faculties, the Royal College of Nursing at its annual conference this year, the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation, of whom the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is a representative in the House, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Institute of Road Safety Officers, the Institute of Advanced Motorists, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the County Surveyors' Society and the insurance companies. In addition, I have here a letter from the British Insurance Association.
There are strong arguments in favour of the proposal and we are determined that we shall get it through. It is not through lack of trying that people do not voluntarily wear seat belts. There have been media campaigns, sometimes costly, and public education attempts to persuade drivers to wear seat belts. Few people, including Dr. Adams, doubt that it is wise to wear them. The Minister agrees. All that the campaigns have managed in 10 years is to increase the number of people wearing seat belts from 14 to 33 per cent.
An interesting study was made by the Wessex regional health authority into methods of voluntary persuasion and whether they would work. The conclusion was that no means except a legislative one would push the figure above one-third. Some people will say that they always wear seat belts on long journeys and on motorways. Most of the accidents that we are discussing do not occur on motorways or during long journeys. They usually happen within the vicinity of urban areas or in rural areas. The conclusion of the study was that legislation was essential.
I do not think anyone can doubt that if the law required people to wear seat belts, about 85 per cent. or possibly 90 per cent. would do so. A recent public opinion survey by MORI showed that 48 per cent. of drivers supported legislation, while 39 per cent. were against. A majority were therefore in favour. This included some who did not themselves wear seat belts but who said that if this was the law, they would do so. I am sure that this applies also to many hon. Members. Because it is not the law, they neglect to wear seat belts. This is the nub of the argument. Another public opinion poll showed 50 per cent. were for seat belts, and 46 per cent. were against.
I should like to refer to the views of those who know the importance of wearing seat belts through their own experience. The Norfolk accident rescue service, based on the county police headquarters, has told other Norfolk members and myself:
We are convinced that the successful outcome of this proposal would result in the greatest advance yet achieved in the reduction of serious injury from road traffic accidents.
This rescue service knows a little more about the subject than do some hon. Members. Mr. John MacNae,

consultant in the accident and emergency division of Norfolk and Norwich hospital, writing on behalf of all casualty surgeons wrote a few days ago:
I hope and pray that this time we will be successful.
I echo that hope tonight. I agree with RoSPA that
no other single practical piece of legislation could achieve such dramatic savings in lives and serious injuries.
That is without mentioning the long waiting lists in the orthopaedic wards of our hospitals, as the Secretary of State for Social Services, who succeeded me, knows as well as I do. In my view, Parliament's reputation will be enhanced by a substantial affirmative vote tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I remind the House, although I am sure that it does not need reminding, that the guillotine falls on this Lords amendment at 9 pm. Hon. Members will perhaps take that into account when making their speeches.

Mr. Moate: I am one of the illiberal, ill-informed, do-gooders to whom my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred. I hope passionately that this Lords amendment will be agreed by the House. I have supported the compulsory wearing of seat belts for 10 years. I doubt whether there is a document on this subject that I have not read. If I am illiberal, ill-informed and a do-gooder, I can say only that I am not ashamed to share that distinction with a large number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and a large number of significant organisations outside the House.
My hon. and learned Friend, in using that phraseology to describe those who disagree with him, is referring to the doctors of this land, the organisations that represent them, the surgeons, the nurses, the Automobile Association and a whole range of distinguished organisations and people. I ask my hon. and learned Friend and those who share his view to reflect upon the fact that many hon. Members who are equally passionate in opposing interfering and busybody legislation feel sufficiently strongly to say that this is an issue where Parliament and the Government should take steps to try to save lives. We are just as much freedom fighters as those who take a contrary view. On this issue, we disagree. I hope that more attention will be paid to the arguments that we put, particularly as regards the number of lives that can be saved.
I respect the manner in which my hon. and learned Friend has campaigned against this issue. He says that he is overwhelmingly in favour of the wearing of seat belts. He takes that view presumably because he accepts that it saves lives. There is little dispute about the fact that seat belts are a good thing and that they can save lives and reduce injuries. I presume that the argument relates to the question of numbers. My hon. and learned Friend concentrated on the so-called new evidence of Mr. Adams. This is the first time that opponents of compulsion have had something that they regard as significant on which to latch. All the evidence previously was overwhelmingly in favour of compulsory seat belt wearing reducing the number of accidents and injuries. It is not therefore, I presume, a question of principle.

Mr. Henderson: Yes, it is.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend says it is a question of principle. Those who believe that are saying that if we can


prove that a large number of lives will be saved, the question of freedom is set aside. They are prepared to sacrifice what they see as an important point of individual liberty only if a large number of lives can be saved and injuries averted. That is a respectable point of view, but it adds emphasis to the argument put by Mr. Adams and others. It is therefore reasonable to examine the question of numbers.
I became convinced of the case for seat belts on the basis of the Australian figures some eight to 10 years ago. I believe that it was on the basis of those figures and also a surey undertaken by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory that the Government argued repeatedly that up to 1,000 lives a year could be saved and 10,000 injuries avoided if compulsory seat belts wearing were introduced. That figure was reduced. It was based on 100 per cent. wearing seat belts. We are now talking of 70 per cent., 80 per cent., or probably 90 per cent. wearing if the measure is introduced.

Mr. Gary Waller: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Australian figures are limited to one state and are therefore unique? Will he agree that there are also many other factors that were not sufficiently taken into account at the time?

Mr. Moate: The figures were the basis that led me originally to believe that the case for wearing seat belts is right. I was also convinced by the fact that the Automobile Association, representing millions of motorists, took up cudgels in favour of compulsion. It has campaigned continuously and courageously over the years. I agree that the Australian figures were based on one state. Since then, 23 nations have accepted compulsion. We are becoming the odd man out in the Western world. All these nations have been convinced that this is a valuable method of life saving and have accepted it.
The Royal Automobile Club is opposed to compulsion. It distributed a document recently that presumably it regarded as setting out a strong argument against compulsion. It attached to it an answer that was given in another place that set out the comparative statistics for seat belt wearing. Presumably the RAC thought that it was strong evidence in favour of its argument. It referred to West Germany and Sweden. The compulsory wearing of seat belts in those countries has not produced results as dramatic as those in Australia. However, it produced significant evidence that lives can be saved.
In West Germany, before compulsion there were 21,486 deaths. After compulsion there were 21,190 deaths. Taking the three years before and the three years afterwards, not many lives were saved, but at the same time there was a 10 per cent. increase in car mileage. If account is taken of that increase in road activity, about 600 lives a year were saved and 11,000 injuries avoided. If account is taken of the same fctor in Sweden, about a 10 per cent. saving in injuries and fatalities was achieved.
Presumably the RAC selected West Germany and Sweden to support its case. The two countries were included in the document produced by Mr. Adams. I presume that they were included in an attempt to try to prove his case. I find it significant that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and others select Mr. Adams's work as their main evidence.

Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Adams is the only person who has done any work on the subject.

Mr. Moate: The argument has raged for 10 years. I suggest that a great deal more work would have been produced by many others if my argument, and those of others who support it, were as weak and thin as my hon. and learned Friend has suggested.

Mr. Lawrence: Has my hon. Friend considered the possibility that we have not been aware of the statistics, figures and graphs before because they do not suit the pro-compulsion case?

Mr. Moate: Those who have lived through the many debates and filibusters over the years will not believe that my hon. and learned Friend and many others did not deploy all the arguments suitable for their case. They have had ample opportunity to deploy any argument that they wished.
Mr. John Adams is a lecturer in geography. He has produced an eccentric paper and has made the preposterous suggestion that the wearing of seat belts encourages people to drive more dangerously. That is to suggest that any safety device is to be deplored because it makes people careless. Is that argument to be used against building workers wearing safety helmets? Is it to be applied to machinery that is guarded? Is it seriously argued that safety devices make people behave more dangerously? I think that the majority of people would consider that a ludicrous proposition.
Mr. Adam's case seems to be undermined because he is personally in favour of the wearing of seat belts. How can he reconcile the two approaches? The case for compulsion lies in numbers. If only a few people were involved, I suspect that the House would be reluctant to impose a measure of compulsion. Undoubtedly there is an infringement of personal freedom. I do not regard it as being a significant infringment. It has been proved beyond doubt over the years that hundreds of lives could be saved by the compulsory wearing of seat belts. I should regard 200 or 300 lives saved as more than sufficient to prove the need for compulsory measure.
My right hon. and hon. Friends who take the view that the compulsory wearing of seat belts is an unacceptable infringement of personal liberty are getting things out of perspective. I am concerned about this feature of the debate because these are people for whom I have immense respect and with whom I generally agree. We wish to restrict the amount of Government interference, but to apply all the arguments about personal liberty and personal freedom to the roads is to misapply those arguments.
The State creates modern roads. I am not talking about ancient rights to travel on Roman roads. The conditions that are created allow motor vehicles to travel at phenomenal speeds. If the State creates conditions in which danger can exist, we have an obligation to ensure that we lay down conditions whereby people may drive reasonably safely. We know that there is no real freedom on the roads. We have to drive on one side of the road. We cannot always turn where we want to turn. We cannot drive at the speed at which we want to drive. The cars that we drive have to comply with many safety standards. These standards are devised to protect not only other people on the roads but drivers. The Government have a duty to lay down the conditions under which we drive if they are to prevent injury to others and to ourselves.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reconsider their passionate feelings about freedom of choice and liberty. These feelings are not appropriate to the conditions on our roads.
I recognise that there is hardly an issue that raises more passions and more feelings throughout the country than the one before us. We have been arguing about it for 10 years. I hope passionately that tonight we shall accept the amendment that is before us. However, the argument will not end then. We shall have to argue about exemptions and regulations. The clause requires that the issue should return before the House in another three years. I trust that those who oppose the amendment and the clause will accept the three-year experiment. I trust that they will accept that Parliament has spoken clearly in both Houses in favour of the experiment. I hope that the measure will be allowed to take its place in the Bill and that the Bill will be enacted. I hope that it will be given the opportunity to prove that it car, save lives. I hope also that at the same time as we use the measure to save lives my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make it part of a massive campaign to reduce the number of road accidents. If this Parliament can do one great thing in this Session, it can reduce the appalling and unacceptable slaughter on the roads. That is basically what the amendment is all about.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) and all those in favour of the proposal that is before us are rightly putting stress on saving lives and reducing the need for hospital treatment. The hon. and leaned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) rightly said that the same argument could be applied to smoking. Why do we not ban smoking? Why did my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North not introduce legislation to ban smoking when he was in a position to do so as a Minister in the Labour Government? That would have saved lives and reduced the need for hospital treatment.
What about drinking? Why do we not stop people from drinking? We do not do that because the Government get money when people drink. That being so, the Treasury will not approve of legislation to stop drinking. I am talking about general drinking. We know that some people drink themselves to death. The Treasury does not want drinking to stop.

Mr. Foulkes: What about stopping eating?

Mr. Lewis: Indeed. I was coming to that. Overeating can result in death. That is what we are told by many experts. We are told that we are likely to drop dead if we are too heavy. I wish that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) were in the Chamber. I am glad that the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) has just entered the Chamber. Let us have a law to stop us eating. We probably overeat and we might drop dead or cause ourselves to be in need of hospital treatment. What a farce that would be.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North had a heart attack recently. He was walking with a stick. I heard that he came back before he was supposed to do so. He returned to resume his work and to carry out his duty. Good luck to him. Let us have a law to prevent his doing that. If a doctor says that an individual should not get back into harness, let us have a law to stop individuals from doing so.
I have read articles by many experts that include the advice that too much sex can cause heart trouble. Apparently we might drop dead if we over-indulge.

Mr. John Prescott: Too much sex makes us blind.

Mr. Lewis: Let us have a law to say that we must not have too much sex. That would be laughable, because it could not be enforced.

Mr. Martin Stevens: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) for giving way. His heart may not be in mid-season form, but it is certainly in the right place.

Mr. Lewis: That is the point that I am making It is ludicrous and farcical. Of course there are many things that people should not do. Of course I should not overeat. Of course I know that it is wrong to carry too much weight, but I make up my own mind. If I am told that I should not eat this or that, I still decide.

Mr. Ennals: That is right.

Mr. Lewis: My right hon. Friend may be overweight. Perhaps he should stop eating. Let us be honest and say that if we wore crash helmets in cars there would be fewer concussions. Let us wear visors, because that would protect our faces. So let us have a law that says that we must wear crash helmets with visors. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) lost an arm, but perhaps if we wore gauntlets when driving cars our hands would not get cut if we had a crash. We should not have had to go to hospital with cut hands. So let us have no car driving without gauntlets.
What a farce. Where do we stop? There are about 2,000 rules and regulations affecting vehicles on the road, and there is not a man in Britain who could say what they are. The police do not know, and they cannot enforce half of them—even simple matters. They cannot enforce the payment of vehicle excise duty, as it is plain to see. Cars drive around with tyres that are worn, and no MOT tests, What can the police do? They do their best. How can the police see whether we are wearing our belts? The belt may be round one's person, but it may not be done up. We can tell the police that it was on, or that we have just undone it as we were pulled up. How will they know?
What about the cars which legally do not have seat belt anchor points? I have a car that was made before seat belts came in, and I do not have to wear one.

Mr. Foulkes: It has a man with a red flag in front of it.

Mr. Lewis: That is right.
Where do we start, and where do we stop? I agree that we can make rules and regulations.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: What about suicide?

Mr. Lewis: One can commit suicide. One can shoot oneself, poison oneself, or jump off the top of a building, but one is not allowed to drive a car without a seat belt, knowing that one might kill oneself.
The police have enough troubles. The police that I see in Cannon Row rarely wear seat belts. This morning I saw a policeman get out of a panda car and then get back into it. He was not wearing a seat belt. I am not complaining, because it is for him to decide.
What about ambulance men? How many times do we see ambulance men belted up? I rarely see them wearing seat belts. What about firemen?

Mr. Rees-Davies: What about taxi drivers?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, and firemen and bus drivers? I could go on.
Let us get the matter into perspective.

Mr. George Robertson: My hon. Friend once accused me of being a new Member after I had been in the House for two years. Now that I have been here for three years, perhaps I shall not be accused of that. If this provision is so unenforceable—and my hon. Friend seems to be basing most of his argument on its unenforceability—why are both the Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales and the Association of Chief Police Officers of Scotland resolutely in its favour? They have said publicly that we should endorse it tonight.

Mr. Lewis: I do not know. I should need to ask the police officers concerned. My hon. Friend might also ask them why they are in favour of the death penalty. The police are in favour of the death penalty, so let us do what the police want and have the death penalty. Let us have shooting for looting. During the war we had shooting if there was looting.
Everyone who wants to belt up can do so. There is nothing to stop that, but we must not try to tell people what they must do. What about people with asthma? What about people with heart trouble or who suffer from claustrophobia? When a doctor gives his certificate of exemption, how does he know when someone is speaking the truth? One can say "I keep getting a pain in my heart every time I do up my seat belt. I want a certificate.". Or perhaps I could say "My hand sometimes goes a bit limp and I cannot do up my seat belt. Give me a certificate.".
I recommend all those who are against this measure to go to their doctors and tell them that there is something to prevent their wearing seat belts. The doctor does not know. Perhaps one person has shoulder trouble. There are 101 different reasons for seeking exemption. I shall do my utmost to oppose the measure, because in my opinion it is farcical and is the thin end of the wedge. Two thousand regulations will become 3,000, and we must stop that process. It is a waste of time and money.
I once heard a rumour. Many years ago we had a certain Minister of Transport who, it was alleged, had got in with a seat belt manufacturer and was persuaded that it would be a good idea to have seat belts. Subsequently, we had seat belts. It was then said that he might join the board of the company, but that did not actually happen. There are sometime vested interests at work. I believe that people should decide whether they want to wear seat belts, and as long as they do not cause pain or suffering to others there is no reason why they should be compelled to do things that they do not want to do.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): At least that last charge will not be levelled against me, with the views that I hold.
I wish to intervene briefly to give some indication of the Government's position and to add my personal views on the position.
This is obviously an issue not only of controversy but of deeply held personal beliefs. The Government recognise that, and there will be a free vote on our side of the House. That will apply as much to Ministers as to anyone else. It is in no way a party political matter. It is a decision for Parliament, and the Government will abide by that decision.
There are many in the House, irrespective of their sides in the argument, who believe that it should take a decision on the issue one way or the other. During the past eight years five attempts at legislation have been made from the Commons. We have, therefore, had plenty of opportunities to give our views, and now the House has the opportunity to decide.
The clause before the House follows previous attempts at legislation in being, basically, an enabling measure. It gives me powers to make regulations requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts, but that power is now subject to a number of important qualifications. First, three months before any regulation is made I must lay before Parliament a statement explaining the proposals and setting out, for example, the exemptions. That statement would enable me to take into account the public response before laying the regulations themselves.
Secondly, the regulations themselves must make provision for exceptions to be made for local delivery drivers of goods or mail, those with medical certificates and drivers while reversing. But that does not prevent me from making further exemptions, and we would consider that. Thirdly, the regulation itself is subject to the affirmative procedure. Fourthly, and most fundamental of all—the regulations have a life that is specifically limited to three years. In other words, they would have to be renewed after the three-year period.
I hope that, again, both sides of the argument might see advantages in that. Those who believe that compulsion will lead to a reduction in deaths and injuries will, presumably, not dispute a provision that enables that claim to be put to the test. Those who oppose on the ground that it will not result in such a reduction, would similarly have their theories checked. I do not say that that disposes of the debate on the principle, but if the House decides in favour of compulsion there will be that check.
On the issue itself, I hope that nothing that is said tonight will challenge the proposition that seat belts provide protection in an accident and that it is a matter of common sense to wear them. Indeed, not only common sense but financial interest also dictates that course. The fact is that the courts will reduce personal injury damages by up to 25 per cent. for the person not wearing a belt. Nevertheless, it has to be admitted that in spite of all the arguments and the publicity, seat belt wearing in Britain has reached an average of only 33 per cent. although on motorways it is 43 per cent.
The next question is whether it is possible to estimate the savings in lives and injuries if we had compulsion. I shall seek to be as objective as possible. In the past it has been estimated that if there was a 100 per cent. wearing rate there would be savings of 1,000 lives and 10,000 serious injuries. But, of course, a 100 per cent. wearing rate is wholly unrealistic. The question is whether lower wearing rates would produce savings in direct proportion. In the past we have tended to assume that they would, and thus that an 80 per cent. rate would produce savings of 700 lives and 7,000 serious injuries, and a 60 per cent. rate one of 450 lives and 4,500 serious injuries. However, the more


recent work in the Department suggests that that is unlikely to be so. There are a variety of possible reasons for that. One is that drivers who fail to comply may be more accident prone in any event because they ignore other regulations also. As evidence of that, a study in New South Wales indicated that 20 to 25 per cent. of car drivers who do not use their belts account for 80 per cent. of the front-seat fatalities in cars. In other words, the reduction in casualties is not proportionate. But precisely how much less the expected savings would be compared with the original projections is impossible to state with any confidence, although I stress that there should still be savings. No one would deny that.
7.45 pm
Of course, the Adams report suggests that compulsion encourages riskier driving. I think that that hypothesis is dubious and not proven. I think that Mr. Adams is right to challenge some of the estimates of savings made, however. An important point that comes from international comparisons is that the results are better in countries such as Australia and New Zealand and not as good in countries such as Canada, France, Ireland and Norway. The difference is that in the first group of countries the law has been enforced strongly and with effective penalties, and in the second group the wearing rate has been lower, the law has been only partly enforced, sometimes even without penalty. There should be worthwhile savings. They are difficult to quantify, but the evidence suggests that the effectiveness of the law depends on enforcement.
Perhaps, at this point, I should give my personal views. During the past two years I have been attacked for my position on the issue. The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) for example has told me to forget my prejudices and, by implacation, to accept his principles. I hope that I can persuade him that wherever else we may disagree, there are also issues of principle for those of us who oppose compulsion.
My starting point is that I want to see the minimum of interference with the decisions of the individual citizen. I notice that that statement is often made in the House, but one which we often find it convenient to find exception for when faced with the decision on a particular case. I also believe that, quite apart from principle, there are solid practical reasons for relying on the common sense of the public.
In the motoring area, although we have less restrictions than our European neighbours, our road saftey record is not one of the worst in Europe—it is one of the best if not the best.
An international comparison of road accidents shows that in terms of car user deaths per 100 million car kilometres the British figure is the lowest in Europe. The British figure of 1·2 deaths compares with countries such as Belgium with a rate three times as heavy; France which is almost three times as heavy and Germany which is almost double. It is against that background that I judge this new clause. We are being asked tonight not to support the case for wearing seat belts—which I do gladly and constantly—but to say that the non-wearing of a seat belt should be a criminal offence. That is the essence of the proposal.
I accept that there are no absolutes in deciding whether a new law should be introduced, and that in the past we

have introduced laws that have interfered with the freedom of individuals to decide. The law on motor cycle helmets is the nearest analogy.
That leads me to ask a second question—how easy is the law to enforce? The helmet law is easy and comes close to being self-enforcing No one would claim that of the seat belt law. There are obvious difficulties—for example, at night, in heavy traffic—for the police to check. And yet I suggest that unless the law is enforced the savings in casualties will not be fully achieved. We have long since passed the stage where Parliament can pass criminal laws and simply hope that they will be observed.

Mr. Grieve: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that Parliament should be particularly careful not to create new criminal offences in which there is no element of moral obloquy?

Mr. Fowler: That is a further point, but I shall keep to the point which I was seeking to make. It was because of the breakdown 150 years ago of the theory that Parliament could make criminal law and see it observed that we started an organised police force.
I do not agree with Mr. Roger Birch in his letter to The Times which has been mentioned on a number of occasions, when he says that to a great extent the law will be self-enforcing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said, the experience of Australia and those countries which are most successful is based on enforcement of the law. My figures show that approximately 6 per cent. of all motor traffic prosecutions at the moment in Australia are prosecutions for seat belt offences. That would lead to a large figure of prosecutions in this country if the same test were carried out in England and Wales. It would perhaps explain why an organisation such as the Magistrates' Association is opposed to compulsion.

Mr. George Robertson: Does the Secretary of State accept that an enormous number of people in this country, including Opposition Members, would be opposed to introducing unenforceable legislation, which would lead to a serious new strain in relations between police and the public? Over many years the associations representing both chief police officers and the rank and file have concluded that the legislation is enforceable and desirable. Surely if anyone had an interest in arguing that an unenforceable and unnecessary law should not be enacted, it is the representatives of those organisations. That is a powerful argument.

Mr. Fowler: The fairest way of summing up the view in the police and among the public is that views are different and divided. No one would claim that the police service was united on that point. I would be surprised it anyone seriously made that point. I see that the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) shakes his head.
For many years we have taken a cautious view about introducing new motoring laws. As the Royal Commission of the Police said in 1962,
No law can be considered satisfactory unless it commands wide popular support, and its purpose is understood and accepted.
The Royal Commission of 1962 is recognised as one of the most distinguished summaries in this area. It added:
Sensible modern laws consonant with public opinion and generally understood and accepted are the indispensible foundation on which the police themselves can enforce the road traffic laws uniformly.


Those are wise words. In this context we should accept one point. Personally, I always wear a seat belt. It seems to me a commonsense precaution. It is true that many do not wear seat belts because they cannot be bothered. However, many others have made a conscious decision not to wear them. They have made their judgment. We may believe that we know better. We may quote the figures at those people and we may call their views anecdotal. However, we would be foolish to ignore the fact that a great number of people believe that that is a decision for them, not a matter for the criminal law.
That is the problem which we face this evening. We are making criminal law and we are asking the police to enforce it. What persuades me on this issue is the important relationship between police and public, which is perhaps more obviously relevant today than on any other occasion when I have spoken on this issue. The relationship between police and motorist is a crucial part of the relationship between police and public. It is perhaps as motorists that the public are most likely to come into contact with the police. Nothing is more important than that we should, as a priority of policy, preserve good relations between police and public. That means exercising a self-denying ordinance on the new regulations and laws which we ask the police to enforce.
That is my judgment. I accept that this is a balanced argument. I respect very much the sincerity of the views which have been put by right hon. and hon. Members on this issue. Many of my hon. Friends support compulsion, as do many of my colleagues in Government, such as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. This is a free vote. The Government, and I personally as Secretary of State for Transport, will carry out the decision of the House. I give that pledge. However, on the issue of principle I intend to vote "No".

Mr. Roger Stott: I am sure that the House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for the information that he has given concerning the statistical analysis of road accidents and what the possible saving of life would be if compulsion were brought about. I regret to inform him that I profoundly disagree with his analysis. However, like him, I am speaking in a personal capacity because this is not a party issue. Therefore, my speech is no reflection on my hon. Friends who take a different view.
I am glad that the House of Commons is able to debate this important subject. My only regret is that this important provision was not in the Bill as originally drafted. This amendment was also not forthcoming when the Bill was before the House on Second Reading or Report. An issue of this magnitude should be dealt with in the House of Commons rather than elsewhere. However, not to be too churlish, I am grateful that their Lordships saw fit to amend the Bill. They amended a glaring omission from the original Bill. This is the fifth time that Parliament has had the opportunity to debate this important issue. I sincerely hope that the long crusade by many hon. Members on both sides for compulsory wearing of seat belts will end in victory.
Most developed countries have now acknowledged the importance of seat belts. As the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said in his excellent contribution,

in 1980, 23 countries made the wearing of seat belts compulsory. The United Kingdom is the only Common Market country without such legislation—

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And the lowest rate of deaths.

Mr. Stott: The introduction of compulsion in other countries has generally achieved a wearing rate of between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent.
The Secretary of State has given the House figures, which no doubt his Department has considered carefully, to ascertain the potential savings if seat belts were to become compulsory and if the wearing were 100 per cent. I accept that that is not possible, but the figures are interesting. If it were compulsory to wear seat belts and everyone wore them, the potential saving would be 1,000 lives and 10,000 serious injuries would be avoided. If 75 per cent. of the population wore seat belts, 650 lives would be potentially be saved and 6,500 serious injuries would be avoided. [Interruption.] I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) listened to my speech in silence. If 50 per cent. of the population wore seat belts, the Department of Transport estimates that 300 lives would be saved and 3,000 serious injuries avoided.
8 pm
It is not insignificant that the Secretary of State for Social Services has been listening to the debate. He and his entire ministerial team will, I suspect, support this provision in the Lobby because, perhaps more than anyone else, they know what it costs to put people together again following a road accident. Road traffic accidents are now such a major cause of death and incapacity that the present proposals must be regarded as public health legislation. Road accidents are responsible for more than half of all male deaths in the 1 to 19-year-old age group, and the proportion of young people killed and crippled by such accidents continues to rise.
These accidents make substantial and imperative demands on our hospital services. The severity of the injuries received by the victims requires sophisticated medical treatment, and the demands made by such injuries cannot be met within existing resources without other services and operations taking a back seat. The introduction of laws to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory will not only reduce the pain and suffering of accident victime; it will also reduce the demand for hospital services, thus easingthe burden on those waiting for hospital space currently occupied by accident victims.
The medical profession has made considerable advances in treating injury and illness. However, prevention is better than cure. A major step towards that prevention would be the introduction of the compulsory wearing of safety belts in cars.
Those countries that have introduced compulsion can point to a decline in death and injury on their roads. The Government and the Secretary of State for Social Services have already estimated the potential saving in life if the wearing of seat belts was to become compulsory, but what about the saving in financial resources? In a debate on road safety last December, it was estimated that if seat belt use rose from 30 per cent. to 100 per cent., 12,000 fewer people would be fatally injured on our roads. However, medical savings at 1976 prices would be about £75 million. I have no doubt that that figure is considerably


greater today. In addition, the resources taken up in hospital as a result of road accidents was estimated to be 150,000 bed nights.
Given those figures, and the magnitude of the expenditure incurred by the NHS to treat road casualties, it is hardly surprising that the medical profession totally supports what the proponents of compulsion are attempting to do. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) read out an impressive list of organisations, covering the whole spectrum of the medical profession, that are in favour of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. He mentioned the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Surgeons and the British Medical Association.
I and some of my hon. Friends have met and talked to those people. I am absolutely convinced of their sincerity, because above everyone else they are best able to judge the damage and awful problems that ensue from road accidents.

Mr. Ennals: Especially the casualty surgeons.

Mr. Stott: Precisely, the casualty surgeons are at the forefront. They are at the sharp end—

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I accept that the evidence produced by the medical profession is important and that we should consider it carefully. However, is the hon. Gentleman really saying that the medical profession is in the best position to judge whether such a law is an effective way of reducing the damage?

Mr. Stott: That is a different matter. I am saying that, based upon the real human evidence with which the hospitals must deal, the medical profession has urged all of us to support the compulsory wearing of seat belts because, like myself, it believes that there would be a significant reduction in deaths on the roads as a result.
In June the consultants held their annual conference in Brighton. It was attended by Dr. Gordon Trinca, a Melbourne casualty consultant. According to The Times, he said:
I weep for you here in Britain…Wearing seat belts is the single most effective measure to prevent death or serious injury in a car crash. In the 10 years since Victoria introduced compulsion, the death rate has fallen from 8 to 3·4 per 10,000 vehicles registered per year, in spite of increase of traffic. How can you ignore smashed faces, damaged brains and broken kneecaps caused by not wearing belts? The responsibility for 20 dead Britons lies with each of your politicians.
That may be somewhat exaggerated, but that is what the gentleman felt and he must have felt strongly about it when he said it.
I cite three more examples from that same conference. Dr. John MacNae of Norwich said:
I am desperate, I've been trying so long. I've come to the conclusion politicians are just not concerned about public safety.
Dr. Malcolm Hall of Preston agreed. He said:
When they talk about the infringement of personal liberty, I don't understand. There's no freedom in death or disfigurement.
Even Sir William Rutherford, the distinguished consultant at the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast, where many victims of violence are treated, finds traffic accidents more horrifying and frequent than terrorist offences in Northern Ireland. That is a sad comment from such an eminent surgeon. It is therefore hardly surprising that the medical profession wishes to see the compulsory wearing of seat belts enacted.
An orthopaedic surgeon recently informed me that one of the best operations now performed by the NHS is the replacement of arthritic hips. The waiting list for such a replacement is between one and four years. That is one of the most emancipating operations for people suffering from that disease. But those operations cannot be speeded up because of the time taken by orthopaedic surgeons to patch up people involved in accidents who have not worn seat belts.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) prayed in aid the evidence of Dr. John Adams. I was tempted to rebut his arguments, but the rebuttal was done forcibly by the hon. Member for Faversham (.Mr. Moate). In cross-correspondence in The Times this year, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell)—I assume that there is a valid reason for his absence tonight—supported the beliefs of Dr. Adams, but they were firmly rebutted by the Birmingham accident unit and Murray Mackay, an eminent specialist, unlike a geographer, on this subject.
The rebuttals were extremely concise and precise. Those of us who have attempted to look at the problem seriously find the evidence in Dr. Adams's paper highly spurious and bogus. It does not stand up to the test of serious scrutiny.
The other argument that was advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Burton was that of personal liberty. It is a powerful argument but I was struck by a note that I received from the AA recently, and that I assume other hon. Members received. The AA obtained counsel's opinion on the question of liberty. The note said:
The AA obtained legal opinion on whether restricting the liberty of the subject in this way offends against any constitutional principle. The conclusion reached by Queen's Counsel is that `To say that the proposed legislation…is unconstitutional or is not a proper exercise of parliamentary sovereignty since it infringes upon the liberty of the subject is to make a statement which is without foundation and completely contrary to the sovereignty which Parliament has exercised for many centuries."'
I tend to agree with that statement, because, unlike the hon. and learned Member for Burton—I take slight offence at what he said earlier—but, like the hon. Member for Faversham, many of us have throughout our political lives supported individual freedom and have always done what we could to sustain it, provided that it was responsibly exercised. Like many hon. Members, I seriously question the freedom of people who ride in the front of a car to take entirely avoidable risks, even with their own lives.
The time has now come for this debate, which has been running for 10 years in the House, to reach its conclusion this evening. I respect the views of hon. Members who oppose the compulsory wearing of seat belts, because we all have a right, as we are democratically elected, to express our views, to stand up in the House and try to persuade hon. Members of the force of our arguments. l believe that, with the good sense of those who have pursued the answer to the problem for a long time, the compulsory wearing of seat belts will be enacted tonight.

Mr. Grieve: The tone of the debate has hardly been elevated by the trite and shallow contribution of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott). He spoke with the authentic voice of the manager out of the managerial society: he knows what is good for people, and that is what has to be imposed upon the population.
I fully understand and respect the views that have been put into our postbags and expressed by delegations from the medical profession. Of course, the medical profession sees the consequences—frequently severe and horrid consequences—of not wearing seat belts.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House who are opposed to this measure recognise that, in most cases, though not all, the wearing of seat belts is an act of prudence that is likely to save life and certainly avoid injury. But that is not the issue that we are debating tonight. It is for us, Members of Parliament, to take a broader view than the doctors, whose attitude to the problem is inevitably conditioned by the suffering that they see in hospitals. Of course it is for them to express their view, but it is for us to take the broader view, and the broader view encompasses the effect of any such legislation that we are likely to pass upon the sum total of human freedom and liberty in our society.
Human freedom and liberty are not to be whittled away, even in good causes. As I pointed out in my intervention in the wholly admirable and balanced speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, there is no moral obloquy in the act that we are seeking to forbid by law and to make a criminal offence.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the doctors' view is biased by the fact that they see those who are injured? By definition, they do not see those who escaped because they were not wearing seat belts. There are a number within these precincts whose lives were spared because they were not penned into their cars.

Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend may well be right. There are undoubtedly authentic cases of that, but I am not discussing the pros and cons of wearing seat belts. On balance, I am pro the wearing of seat belts, but it must be left to the individual to decide for himself.
What shall we be doing if we legislate, as I gravely fear that we may? I beg my colleagues to draw back from the brink of legislating on this matter.
There is hardly an aspect of human life where it is not possible for the legislature to say, "You would be better off if you did not do that." The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) made that point with many graphic illustrations. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made it with example after example in his speech. We have been told of alcohol, tobacco, rock climbing and so on.
If we start legislating to prevent people from injuring themselves, there is no limit to the burden that we shall take on and no limit to the number of criminal offences that we shall create and foist upon the unfortunate people whom we are sent here to represent and whose liberties we are here to defend.
I do not believe that there are many in the House who will now be influenced by the speeches made in this debate. I believe that most hon. Members have made up their minds. After all, we have been discussing the matter for many years. Nevertheless, I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members to withdraw from the belief that it is for Parliament to say what shall be done. We can say. We have heard of the ridiculous opinions

given by some Queen's Counsel—God knows who he was—which is cited by the AA. Of course, Parliament can legislate about anything; it can designate men as women and women as men, as Dicey says in one of his textbooks. But that is not the question.
The question is whether it is right that we should legislate on this matter. Is it desirable? Are we called upon to limit the liberties that we are here to defend? The answer, taking the broad view of the whole of human activity, must be that we are not.
It is so easy to be led astray, to whittle away freedoms by saying, "We shall do a lot of good", or, in the words of the hon. Member for Westhoughton, to whom it seems to be the only and primordial consideration, "We shall save a lot of money." Freedom and liberty are priceless, and they are what we are here to defend.
I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members to vote against what the other place has done.

Mr. J. Grimond: I am in total agreement with the Secretary of State's speech. I do not intend to go over the pros and cons of the argument again. They have often been heard in the House. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that it was not an argument about whether we should or should not wear seat belts; it is an argument about whether not wearing them should be made a criminal offence.
The House should be extremely chary about creating new criminal offences at any time. The criminal law is on the whole designed to protect the public at large and not the individual from his own harmful acts. It is true that there may be occasions on which not wearing a seat belt results in harm to someone else, but there is no doubt that the main argument for wearing seat belts is to avoid damage to oneself. If we are to extend the criminal law in that direction, I shall regret it. It should be done with the greatest caution. Once one starts on that line, why not deal with smoking and drinking?
Further, it is extremely undesirable at this time to lay new duties upon the police. This is not the moment to ask them to undertake the work of trying to enforce regulations which I believe would be very difficult to enforce. They already have more duties than they can reasonably be expected to discharge. I believe that their prime duty is to be on the beat and to stop real criminal offences. I therefore do not believe that this is the time to extend the criminal law in this direction. I in no way doubt the honesty and integrity of those who have spoken in favour of the compulsory wearing of seat belts, but I belive that they are wrong.
I do not lay great weight on the argument of liberty. Liberty is infringed by having to drive on the left-hand side of the road. I believe that it is more important to distinguish between those things that are desirable and those things that are to be enforced by the criminal law. I do not believe that the case has been made to extend the criminal law into self-regarding actions in the way that the amendment suggests. I therefore adopt the Secretary of State's arguments and I trust that the House will reject the Lords amendment.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Many of those who have spoken in the debate have been deeply concerned about the question of liberty, and that concern is shared by many of our constituents with regard to the wearing of seat belts. What I find extraordinary in the debate—and there


was a slight echo of this in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about self-regarding actions—is that many of the fundamental points at issue with regard to liberty were cogently set out in John Stuart Mill's essay on the subject, in which he drew the important distinction between liberty and licence and whether the liberty of one person to do a particular thing would have an adverse effect upon others.
I disagree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, because I believe that the question of seat belts is not simply a matter whether, if it is made compulsory, some of those who wear seat belts will themselves be saved. There is, also the question whether, if we do not legislate, there will be an adverse effect upon other people. If one considers the indivdual cases, I believe that the answer is clear
First, I think that there is no dispute that, by and large, the wearing of seat belts is likely to save both lives and accidents. It is also not in dispute that if compulsion is introduced more people are likely to wear seat belts than would otherwise do so. It would therefore seem to follow that if we introduce legislation along the lines that their

Lordships have proposed, fewer people, in exercising their liberty not to wear seat belts, will create a situation in which the police have to clear up after accidents and deaths, and the bloodshed on the roads, to which they are now subjected, will be diminished. It is therefore a matter of licence rather than liberty. The same applies to the hospital service. If we legislate in this way, following the irrefutable line of argument that I have just set out, there will be less strain on the hospital services.
If that is so, the fact that we are not legislating means that the liberty of those who might otherwise have been saved by using the hospital resources has itself been jeopardised. One must strike a balance between the two. That must therefore be taken into account.
To take a slightly more trivial example, there is also the cost to the Exchequer of accidents. The fact that people are using their freedom not to wear seat belts imposes a cost upon the Exchequer and thus on the taxpayer. Indeed, taken to the ultimate extreme, there is the cost of advertising to persuade people to wear seat belts rather than legislating to ensure that they do so.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: rose—

Mr. Higgins: I shall give way in a moment. The Department of Transport's advertisements on the subject have been extremely effective, but it is still not seriously disputable that legislation would substantially increase the number of people wearing seat belts.
Therefore, the matter is important for a variety of reasons and the point of principle does not run in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Smoking and cancer?

Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman referred to smoking and alcohol. One could extend my argument and say that if we prohibited smoking fewer people would go to hospital with cancer and there would be more resources available to deal with other illnesses. That is so, but, as with prohibition in the United States, we must recognise that it would not necessarily be right to do that. In any case, there is a vast difference between compelling people to wear seat belts and legislating in other areas where different problems arise.
I hope that the regulations that will have to be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take fully into account the points made by, for example, the British Insurance Association, because it has made a number of valid comments. No one who favours the Lords amendment would oppose the greatest possible care being taken in the drafting of the regulations.
The issue has been debated many times and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already taken many actions in transport law that have improved road safety and resulted in fewer deaths on the roads. He has rightly decided that the Lords amendment will be the subject of a free vote.
I do not understand how my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) can claim that the effects of the proposed legislation are likely to be perverse. It is abundantly clear that the wearing of seat belts saves lives and reduces the number of accidents and that compulsion is likely to result in more people wearing seat belts. On those grounds I shall support the Lords amendment.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I shall speak only briefly. Let me preface what I have to say by emphasising that I entirely accept the sincerity of right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken for and against the Lords amendment. This is an extremely important debate which raises issues not only of life and death but also of preventable disability. That is why I wanted to intervene and, in supporting the Lords amendment, I shall speak almost exclusively about the prevention of disability.
The House knows that I spend much of my time with severely disabled people. Many that I have spoken to recently have strongly emphasised to me the importance of our debate. They would dearly like to be able to speak and vote tonight. They are tetraplegics, paraplegics and people with other severe disabilities which they know would never have occurred if they had been wearing seat belts when the accidents in which they were disabled occurred.
Freedom has been mentioned frequently in the debate. Let us, therefore, reflect for a moment on the plight of preventably disabled people whose freedom even of personal mobility is now so gravely reduced.
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak for such people tonight. Yet it would be much better if they could speak for themselves. If only they could, I am sure that, from their first-hand experience, they would dissuade even some of the most resolute opponents of the Lords amendment from rejecting it.
Maximising the prevention of disability is one of the principal aims of the International Year of Disabled People, and the first purpose of the "Charter for the 1980s" for disabled people worldwide is that we must save as many people as possible from disability by doing everything humanly possible to improve prevention. The more that we succeed, the more we can help those who are unavoidably disabled.
The whole of the medical profession is united in support of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Professor J. G. Robson, the honorary secretary of the Conference of Medical Royal Colleges and their Faculties in the United Kingdom, wrote on 23 July:
As a preventive measure the wearing of seat belts would not only save many lives but also the prolonged suffering and social disruption of the many thousands of severely injured individuals each year.
He went on to say that
the profession does not regard compulsion in this context as an infringement of personal liberty any more than it so regards dangerous drug control, safety design and guarding of machinery, the guarding of moving belts and countless other safety measures already controlled by legislation.
For the House now to reject this chance to improve prevention would be grossly irresponsible, for it is incontrovertible that to approve the Lords amendment would be to reduce the incidence of disability.
8.30 pm
The Minister said that as many as 7,000 people could be saved from severe disability every year. That is a strikingly important figure in terms not only of the public expenditure that it implies but of the extent of personal suffering that it reflects. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) was eminently right to notice the importance of the attendance here tonight of Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Security.
The House unanimously endorsed on 3 July the aims of the International Year of Disabled People, and there was strong emphasis in the debate on the issue of prevention. This is a long-awaited opportunity for the House to declare itself on an issue of major importance in the field of prevention. Let us seize the opportunity and, in doing so, act in good faith and consistently with the motion that we so strongly supported in the debate on 3 July.
To reject the Lords amendment and then to speak after tonight about the necessity of preventing disability wherever we can would be the purest cant. It really is no good whatever prating about the prevention of disability and then refusing to act when opportunities to do something practical about it occur. Let us match precept with practice tonight by decisively approving the Lords amendment.

Mr. Toby Jessel: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) is an expert on disablement; and it is the object of the Lords amendment to save not only life but limb. Every week a


total of about 120 people are killed in road accidents and about 1,000 people are seriously injured. Most of these cases do not hit the headlines. They occur mainly in ones and twos. But behind the statistics lies a terrible toll of grief and of waste. We can and must act to reduce it. I believe that acceptance of the Lords amendment will reduce it.
That view is shared not only by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who acknowledged that the wearing of seat belts would reduce deaths and injuries on the roads, but by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), and by Professor Adams, according to the quotation given by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend is in danger of misunderstanding the point. The point is not that in any given case somebody's life or limb may be saved by wearing seat belts. That is indisputable. But if Mr. Adams's evidence is correct, that overall more accidents occur as a result of which more people are dying, the overall figure is adverse to the case that my hon. Friend is making.

Mr. Jessel: Professor Adams's thesis is unproven. It is new. It is be lied by the experience of Australia, where there was a dramatic reduction in deaths and injuries when seat belt legislation was introduced. The same can be said of France and Belgium. Admittedly, the numbers have gone up since, but so have the numbers of cars and drivers and the mileage. There has been a great weight of evidence over the years, and no one can belittle it because of a new and unproven thesis.
On the whole, the House accepts that the legislation would reduce the number of deaths and injuries. However, there are still reservations on the question of liberty, which needs to be resolved. The argument has been depicted as a conflict between safety and freedom. There is an element of truth in that. However, the two are not equally balanced. If seat belts were made compulsory, there would be a significant and distinct gain in the saving of lives and in the prevention of injuries compared with a very minor infringement of freedom.
Why do I say that the infringement of freedom would be very minor? It is not onerous to wear a seat belt. It can become second nature to put on a seat belt and the driver hardly notices it. In other countries where seat belts have become compulsory, the people have accepted and adopted them. The main reason why the compulsory wearing of a seat belt is not a great infringement of freedom is that it does not prevent anyone from getting in his car and going where he wishes to go. The only cost is the two seconds that it takes to put on the seat belt. In that sense the loss of freedom is tiny.
That is the answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who has just come back into the Chamber. He said that if we infringed liberty in this way it could pave the way for a ban on smoking, mountaineering, drinking, overeating and so on. If any of those things were banned or curtailed by law, the activity itself would be inhibited. However, the wearing of seat belts does not prevent anyone from driving where he wants, so it is not a parallel case.
I regret the use of the word "criminal". Several hon. Members have said that it is monstrous to use the criminal

law to enforce the wearing of seat belts. The word "criminal" is highly emotive, because it conjures up the idea of a felonious or extremely wicked activity. But all we wish to enact is a law that will say that people must do something. Not to do it will be no more morally reprehensible, to use the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull, than a parking offence. It will not bring moral obloquy. No one regards a parking offence as a criminal matter. No one says that because someone disobeys a parking restriction he is a "criminal".

Mr. Rees-Davies: I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this point, because it lies at the heart of my beliefs. Another criminal offence will be created. The police will stop cars and will, while checking whether a person is wearing a seat belt, ask the driver to produce his insurance certificate, MoT certificate, road fund licence and so on. That will cause trouble between the police and individual citizens. The police will be stopping people in pursuance of a criminal prosecution.

Mr. Jessel: With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I cannot see anything terribly wrong with that. The people of Australia and New Zealand are just as freedom-loving and "bloody-minded" as we are. However, there have been no problems in those countries when other checks have been made when people have been stopped.
Some confusion arises from the use of the word "freedom". It is a big word with a wide range of meanings. However, people talk about it as if it were a single indivisible concept. That is nonsense. Most hon. Members who say that compulsory seat belts would infringe freedom do not feel that their freedom is being infringed when they are required to put on seat belts in aeroplanes. They think that that is the normal thing to do, although it is compulsory under the air navigation order. However, there is something about putting a belt on in a car that excites some hon. Members.
This proposal does not represent any interference with basic freedom in the political, spiritual, psychological and constitutional senses. Objection to it has nothing to do with a love of liberty but derives from the sheer exasperation of being made to do just one more thing in this highly regulated State. However, that one more thing takes only two seconds to do and gives an enormous advantage in terms of safety.
In the conflict between the big advantage to safety and the minor infringement of freedom, common sense should prevail. The House should support the Lords amendment.

Mr. Sheerman: I shall be brief as I realise that many hon. Members still want to speak. So much ground has been covered and so many statistics given that I have thrown away the statistics that intended to present. Many of the statistics have been used and re-used.
We should put right a possible injustice about Dr. Adams. I welcome the advent of Dr. Adams into the debate. If we are to have an academic climate, there must be a place for the lone voice tilting at conventional wisdoms. I do not deplore the fact that Dr. Adams published a controversial paper. I have met Dr. Adams and questioned him about his views. I do not question his integrity or his competence. As a good statistician he spent much time having a go at conventional wisdoms. But that is not to say that the conventional wisdom is not right. In


this case I believe that Dr. Adams was wrong, but that is not a criticism of the man or his quality. I want to make that plain in case an injustice has been done.
In transport safety I am a pragmatist. There are an appalling number of casualties. With the Secretary of State I celebrate the fact that the number of accidents in Britain is lower than in many other countries, but it is still disgracefully high. The sheer talents and futures of so many people, many of them very young, are thrown away. That weighs in the balance of the arguments about freedom and the arguments made by those who oppose the measure.
To be pragmatic, I welcome the three-year trial period. We have an admirable opportunity. If we make a grave mistake we can start again. Let us try the experiment. If it helps to reduce the tremendous waste of human talent, ability and potential and saves lives, well and good. The Secretary of State can then reassess how successful the experiment will have been in those three years'. If we are proved wrong—and Adams and other experts have shown that the conventional wisdoms that they challenged were poor conventional wisdoms—in three years' time we shall have the chance to make up our minds again, afresh and anew.
We must listen to those involved in this desperate waste, whether they be the police, nurses or doctors or those who use their talents such as road engineers and the motoring organisations who try collectively to cut down the carnage on our roads. We must listen to their arguments and act on their views.
We are constantly arguing and discussing liberty and freedom. We all know that at the end of the day it is a question of balance. The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) was correct. One must make up one's mind about the action to be taken knowing that much Government action cuts across some freedoms.
On both sides of the House we profoundly defend freedom. That is why we are here, but we are also here to protect the lives, the futures and the potentials of those whom we represent. As a Member of Parliament I cannot face those men and women who visit me or write to me having lost loved ones and whose family structure has been crushed by a senseless death. Road deaths are senseless. They are a waste, and this country needs all the talent that it has.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am the father of a daughter whose life undoubtedly was saved because she wore a seat belt when her car was turned over on a roundabout at Newcastle upon Tyne. I wish to put on record that I and the majority of my party will support the amendment, whatever my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) might say.

Mr. Sheerman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have always insisted that my children wear seat belts. My daughter on one occasion omitted to wear a seat belt and was able to fling herself into the back of the car and save herself from serious injury, if not death.

Mr. Sheerman: At Wexham Park, out of an investigation of 20,000 accidents, in not one was anyone damaged or inhibited by wearing a seat belt.
Transportation in the twentieth century involves a sophisticated and complex pattern of social life. Sometimes the theories of John Stuart Mill have to be updated in the light of modern changes. We bring a tremendous amount of pressure through commerce and advertising on people to drive faster or drive flashy cars. I am disturbed that an analysis of the people who are careful, who voluntarily wear seat belts and give up certain fatty foods, shows that they tend to be from one social class or background.
A high percentage of the people whom I represent—working men and women—do not belt up. I do not wish to make a political point, but the people who are convinced by argument and advertisement are not among that 60 per cent. of the population whose lives I desperately want to save. I hope that, the House will vote according to my argument.

Mr. Waller: Many hon. Members have spoken about freedom. I do not wish to add to what has been said on that score, because many hon. Members have expressed that argument well. However, it is odd that some hon. Members believe that there should be freedom in respect of every matter but this. There is no question but that if one is belted up in a accident one is much safer. However, there are occasions when the opposite is true. They may be extremely rare, but I believe that the individual has the right to choose.
It is agreed that most babies injected with whooping cough vaccine have a better chance of escaping the disease. Would any Government legislate for all babies to be vaccinated with that vaccine? I do not believe that they would. We would all say that that was wrong.
Large numbers of motorists are against compulsion. It might be 45 or 50 per cent. I do not wish to argue about the percentage, but it is considerable. Not many will disagree that compulsion would affect relations between the public and the police.
A serving police officer who is particularly concerned with the investigation of accidents, Inspector Bennett, who is studying at St. John's college, Oxford, said:
There is already a growing belief that the motorist is unfairly discriminated against by the police. Rightly or wrongly, a seat belt law could easily confirm that belief.
It is important that respect for the law is confirmed in the House. If we introduce a law that is disapproved of by many people, it will be brought into disrepute. A. C. J. P. Phillips, in an article headed
The Place of Law in Contemporary Society",
wrote:
It is a short step from dishonouring and disregarding one enactment which restricts freedom to dishonouring and disregarding law in general. Then anarchy results.
There is a considerable amount in what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) said about banning other activities. I shall not pursue the argument, because time is short. The central argument is whether compulsion will save lives. The proponents of compulsion argue that it will save vast numbers of lives, yet until Dr. Adams produced his results no one had carried out any adequate research. The situation had been accepted except for the fact that, in an accident, one would be better off when wearing a seat belt. No one disputes that.
Hon. Members have received evidence from the medical profession in support of its belief that this legislation should be introduced. It goes without saying that the medical profession believes that to be so. Its


members have no more knowledge than hon. Members have of the statistics. It is the overall statistics that are important. It is often claimed that a belt law in Britain would save 1,000 lives. It is claimed that occupant fatalities would be reduced by more than 40 per cent. Efforts have been made to destroy Dr. Adams's credibility, but I do not believe that anyone has been able to do so.
I attended a one-day meeting at Birmingham university, where Dr. Adams was under attack by seven academics. I do not believe that his basic statistics were destroyed. Even those who disagree with his hypothesis for the statistics would find difficulty in disagreeing with the statistics themselves.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Waller: Time is short and I wish to be brief. Dr. Murray Mackay, the leading academic advocate of compulsion, has said that
the seat belt effect is buried under all the other uncontrolled variables in such an analysis.
That is his explanation of why it is not possible to show that seat belts have saved lives in all the countries that have been mentioned. It contrasts remarkably with the strange claims for the overwhelming fall that would result following the enactment of legislation in other countries.
According to the letter from RoSPA to hon. Members, Dr. Adams's paper
requires detailed analysis with the aid of much background information from the countries concerned before an authoritative comment can be made on it.
That statement was made five months after Dr. Adams had published his paper, but in the interval RoSPA had been unable to disprove his figures.
Before this legislation is enacted, we must be sure. It is not enough not to know. I do not believe that Dr. Adams's thesis has been disproved or that this debate has proved that the introduction of compulsion will save lives. I shall be in the same Lobby as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).

Mr. George Robertson: I used to approach debates on this subject with some burning anger over the manner in which the House of Commons arrived at decisions on what are clearly large and important issues in preventive care. Latterly, that anger has turned to sadness and frustration. Hon. Members have talked and talked and used every procedural device to avoid coming to a conclusion on one of the most important issues facing the people of this country. It was no underestimate of the situation for a recent BBC television programme to be called "The greatest epidemic of our time" when so many thousands of our fellow human beings are being butchered and killed on the roads—in many cases, avoidably so.
Following a good and fair debate, we are now approaching the stage where Parliament can at last come to a conclusion and, I hope, change the way in which the law is regulated. My sadness and frustration are reflected in the letter in The Times today from the three presidents of the three Royal colleges comprising surgeons and physicians. In their powerful letter they stated:
Surgeons see daily the appalling and tragic results of avoidable injuries to people of all ages and feel something approaching despair at the failure of our legislators to take simple steps to reduce this annual carnage; and steps whose efficacy has been proved in many other countries.

Those are the words of those who see daily the effect of road casualties. It is their opinion that so many of them could be avoided if Parliament were to pass one elementary piece of legislation. After its enactment, it would cease to be of the controversial nature that many hon. Members make it out to be.
I have an interest to declare. I am the chairman of the National Seat Belt Survivors Club, organised by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Hundreds of people, including many hon. Members, have come together to tell their stories. They believe that their lives were saved and that they were saved from serious injury in a road traffic accident, one of the most common misfortunes that can befall us, because they were wearing seats belts. Mr. Jackie Stewart, the motor racing driver, who has much more experience of the hard end of motoring driving, is the president of the club.
I am a member of the club because five and a half years ago I was in a serious road accident. That is the other interest that I have to declare. I can present documentary evidence to prove that I was saved because I was wearing a seat belt at the time of collision. As a result, I can participate in this debate. If I speak with added conviction and emotion because of that, let it not be thought that my interest rests on that experience alone. However, to get so close to the abyss and to know that one was saved drives home the message better than documentation and statistics. It drives the message home personally and enables one to have greater sympathy and understanding for the thousands who were not in the fortunate position of wearing a seat belt in the greatest epidemic of our time.
If the House gave more consideration in these debates to those who are no longer around and cannot participate in debates of this nature or write letters to their Members of Parliament because at the time of a road accident they were not wearing the one piece of equipment that would have demonstrably protected them from being injured, we would arrive at a much more rational decision and conclusion.
Much has been made of the unenforceability of the law. As I said earlier to the Secretary of State, many people would be seriously worried about passing this measure, or any other measure, if it were likely to endanger police-community relations or if there were a serious danger that it could not be enforced. As the brother and son of serving police officers, I know only too well the dangers that can occur if Parliament decides to enact legislation that does not have people's support. The organisations that represent our police forces—the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation—have concluded that there would be no enforcement problem and that it would be in the interests of the nation to enact this provision.
Surely we should not listen to self-appointed spokesmen for our law enforcement agencies when there is incontrovertible evidence, part of which has come no later than in today's edition of The Times, that those who represent the police forces believe that it is desirable and necessary that we go ahead and make the wearing of seat belts compulsory. I believe sincerely and passionately that the time has come to stop talking. Parliament has talked long enough on this topic. The time has come to think of those who could be saved as a result of this legislation. It is time for Parliament to follow the lead that has been given by the House of Lords and agree with the amendment.

Mr. Rees-Davies: As I have been denied the opportunity to speak, I merely want to point out, first, that as a disabled person, when I was not wearing a belt, I was thrown out of a car and was uninjured. If I had been injured, obviously, having only one arm, it would have been difficult to disentangle myself.
I end by saying that I support every word that has been said by the Secretary of State.

It being Nine o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. John Wells: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you make it abundantly clear that those who are against compulsion should vote Aye because of the nature of the way that the Question is put? There might be some confusion among hon. Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): If an hon. Member wishes to support the Lords amendment, he should vote No. Hon Members who are opposed to the Lords amendment should vote Aye.

The House having divided: Ayes 144, Noes 221.

Division No. 292]
[9.00 pm


AYES


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Greenway, Harry


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Grieve, Percy


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Banks, Robert
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Bendall, Vivian
Grylls, Michael


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bidwell, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan


Biggs-Davison, John
Hawkins, Paul


Blackburn, John
Heddle, John


Body, Richard
Henderson, Barry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hicks, Robert


Bradley, Tom
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Bright, Graham
Homewood, William


Brinton, Tim
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Brotherton, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Budgen, Nick
Kimball, Marcus


Butcher, John
Lambie, David


Butler, Hon Adam
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Latham, Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Colvin, Michael
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Cope, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cryer, Bob
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Eggar, Tim
Macfarlane, Neil


Emery, Peter
Madel, David


Farr, John
Marland, Paul


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marlow, Tony


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Mather, Carol


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Forrester, John
Mayhew, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mellor, David


Fox, Marcus
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Goodlad, Alastair
Molyneaux, James


Gow, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus


Gower, Sir Raymond
Moore, John





Morgan, Geraint
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Steen, Anthony


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stevens, Martin


Myles, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


O'Halloran, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Osborn, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thompson, Donald


Percival, Sir Ian
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Torney, Tom


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Trippier, David


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Trotter, Neville


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Rees-Davies, W. R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Waddington, David


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wakeham, John


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Waller, Gary


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wells, Bowen


Royle, Sir Anthony
Wheeler, John


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Whitney, Raymond


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Shersby, Michael



Skeet, T. H. H.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Matthew Parris and


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Christopher Murphy.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Eastham, Ken


Alexander, Richard
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Anderson, Donald
Elliott, Sir William


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E)
Evans, John (Newton)


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Beith, A. J.
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Field, Frank


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Foulkes, George


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Buchan, Norman
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Cartwright, John
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
George, Bruce


Chapman, Sydney
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Churchill, W. S.
Goodhart, Philip


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Graham, Ted


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Cohen, Stanley
Grant, John (Islington C)


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cook, Robin F.
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Costain, Sir Albert
Hannam, John


Cowans, Harry
Hardy, Peter


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Crouch, David
Hayhoe, Barney


Crowther, J. S.
Haynes, Frank


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Heffer, Eric S.


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Home Robertson, John


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Hooley, Frank


Deakins, Eric
Hooson, Tom


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Horam, John


Dewar, Donald
Hordern, Peter


Dixon, Donald
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Dobson, Frank
Hoyle, Douglas


Dormand, Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Janner, Hon Greville


Dubs, Alfred
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Jessel, Toby


Dykes, Hugh
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)






Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Kerr, Russell
Prescott, John


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Prior, Rt Hon James


Knox, David
Rathbone, Tim


Leighton, Ronald
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rhodes James, Robert


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lestor, Miss Joan
Richardson, Jo


Loveridge, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Luce, Richard
Robertson, George


Lyell, Nicholas
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Rooker, J. W.


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Roper, John


McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


McCrindle, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


McElhone, Frank
Rossi, Hugh


MacGregor, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Scott, Nicholas


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McKelvey, William
Sheerman, Barry


Maclennan, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McNally, Thomas
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


McNamara, Kevin
Silverman, Julius


Magee, Bryan
Sims, Roger


Major, John
Soley, Clive


Marks, Kenneth
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Squire, Robin


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stainton, Keith


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Mawby, Ray
Stoddart, David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stott, Roger


Maynard, Miss Joan
Strang, Gavin


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Straw, Jack


Mikardo, Ian
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Tilley, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Tinn, James


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Morton, George
Ward, John


Mudd, David
Warren, Kenneth


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Watkins, David


Neale, Gerrard
Watson, John


Needham, Richard
Welsh, Michael


Newens, Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Newton, Tony
Whitlock, William


Normanton, Tom
Wickenden, Keith


O'Neill, Martin
Wiggin, Jerry


Onslow, Cranley
Wigley, Dafydd


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilkinson, John


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Palmer, Arthur
Wolfson, Mark


Park, George
Woolmer, Kenneth


Parker, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)



Patten, John (Oxford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Pawsey, James
Mr. Roger Moate and


Penhaligon, David
Mr. Austin Mitchell.


Peyton, Rt Hon John

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 12 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 27

CHILDREN TO WEAR SEAT BELTS

Lords amendment: No. 13, leave out clause 27 and insert the following new Clause B—Restrictions on carrying children in the front of motor vehicles—
B.—(1) After section 33 of the 1972 Act there is inserted, after the section inserted by section A, the following section—

"Restrictions on carrying children in the front of motor vehicles.

33B.—(1) Except as provided by regulations a person shall not, without reasonable excuse, drive a motor vehicle on a road when there is in the front of the vehicle a child under the age of fourteen years who is not wearing a seat belt in conformity with regulations.

(2) It is an offence for a person to drive a motor vehicle in contravention of subsection (1) above.

(3) Provision may be made by regulations—

(a) excepting from the prohibition in subsection (1) above children of any prescribed description, vehicles of a prescribed class or the driving of vehicles in such circumstances as may be prescribed;
(b) defining in relation to any class of vehicle what part of the vehicle is to be regarded as the front of the vehicle for the purposes of that subsection;
(c) prescribing for the purposes of that subsection the descriptions of seat belt to be worn by children of any prescribed description and the manner in which such a belt is to be fixed and used.

(4) In this section—
regulations" means regulations made by the. Secretary of State under this section; and
seat belt" includes any description of restraining device for a child and any reference to wearing a seat belt shall be construed accordingly

(2) In Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the 1972 Act (prosecution and punishment of offences) after the entry relating to section 33A there is inserted—


"33B. Driving motor vehicle with child in the front not wearing seat belt
Summarily. £50
Sections 181 and 183 apply"."

Mr. Fowler: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment also concerns safety. In parenthesis, I should like to refer briefly to the general vote on seat belts now that the House has decided the issue. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who have campaigned for many years on the issue. In particular I should like to mention my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), and the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). They have won a decisive victory and I congratulate them.
It may be helpful if I say that the next stage will be the preparation of the statement which I am required to lay before Parliament. I hope to do that as soon as possible in the new Session. There will follow a statutory period of three months during which there will be consultation with the public and interested organisations generally. The regulations will probably be laid early in the new year.
It is difficult to be specific on when the law will come into operation, but I visualise it as being some time in the middle of next year. After the making of the regulations, a period has to be allowed for those who wish to apply to obtain medical certificates or exemptions. I also hope that the House will agree that it would be sensible to accompany, and if possible precede, the introduction of the legislaton with a major publicity effort. I give a firm assurance that now that the House has decided the issue, there will be no delay in implementation.
The new clause concerns children in cars. It is for consideration whether the same timetable should apply to the new clause which we are now considering. The clause which is the subject of amendment No. 13 differs from the previous amendment in that the matter was considered by the House at earlier stages in the passage of the Bill,


having been introduced in Committee by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman). It may, however, be helpful if I remind the House of some of the main considerations.
9.15 pm
First, I believe there was general agreement that, whatever our views on legislation on the safety of adults, the safety of our children raises wholly different considerations. Parliament has a right and, indeed, a duty to ensure their protection. That was why the Government felt able positively to support the clause on children.
Secondly, the way the clause is framed is based on careful consideration of the best available advice. This advice was contained in a report by the Child Accident Prevention Committee, which is an independent body of medical and safety experts. In short, it is proposed that children should sit in the back unless restrained in the front.
Following our earlier decision, concern was expressed in The Sunday Times that children wearing adult seat belts could be at risk. I therefore considered the results of its tests very carefully. I gave my conclusions in a reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) on 5 June. In it I said that I saw no reason to dissent from the view of the Child Accident Prevention Committee that a child was less at risk when restrained by any approved form of restraint, including an adult seat belt, than when travelling unrestrained. Thus, what is proposed is more sensible and more practicable than the commonly suggested alternative of banning children from the front seats.
But I went on to say—this brings me to my third point—that the ideal is, of course, the use of a restraint appropriate to the characteristics of each particular child. I pointed out that this was not something that could be achieved by legislation, which could only set a minimum acceptable standard of safety. For the benefit of those parents who want to improve the safety of their children above this minimum level—and I hope as many as possible will want to do so—I shall be issuing guidance on the types of restraint which offer the best protection to children of various ages and sizes.
Fourthly, we are venturing into a new area of road safety law. It is, therefore, essential that we should be prepared to learn from experience. The adult seat belt clause provides for a review at the end of three years. As I have said, I think that that is a sensible way of proceeding. The clause on children does not contain the same statutory provision. Nevertheless, I believe that, whatever the statutory position, a similar review in three years' time would also be a reasonable way of proceeding to check that the intent has been translated into practical law which is working to the benefit of children. Here I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East.
There are some differences between the clause as it left this House and as it has now been amended in the other place, but I suggest that those differences are of detail rather than of principle. I therefore ask the House to accept the clause as now proposed.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause C

PERSONS ENTITLED TO DRIVE WHEN LICENCE APPLIED FOR

Lords amendment: No. 14, after clause 27 insert—
C.—(1) After section 84(4) of the 1972 Act (under which a person may drive a vehicle without a licence if he has previously held a licence to drive vehicles of that class and has applied for and is entitled to obtain such a licence) there is inserted—
(4A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that subsection (4) above shall also apply (where the requirements of that subsection are otherwise met) in the case of a person who has not previously held a licence to drive vehicles of the relevant class.
Regulations under this subsection shall, if not previously revoked, expire at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which they came into operation.".
(2) In the words in parenthesis in section 199(2) of that Act (exceptions from duty to consult before making regulations), after "section" there is inserted "84(4A) or".

Mr. Fowler: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 15.

Mr. Fowler: The immediate reason for seeking this power is, of course, that the issue of all licences from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea has been blocked for some months by the industrial action of some civil servants and that, even if the current dispute is quickly settled, there will be a substantial backlog of applications to process there. The problem centres on first-time applicants for provisional licences, since those who are renewing licences are already entitled to drive when an application has reached Swansea.
I am fully aware of the difficulties and hardship that are being caused to those awaiting their first licences. Many of these are young people who need them in order to travel to work by moped or motorcycle or to start training for driving jobs. I have also had many pleas from driving schools and instructors, whose flow of new pupils has dried up and who thus face an extremely serious loss of business. Some are threatened with going out of business. There are also signs of a drop in sales of two-wheelers. Some 300,000 new applicants are now waiting for licences, and their number is growing by 30,000 a week.
After reviewing all the possible ways of alleviating these problems, the Government decided that the speediest and most effective measure was to provide that in this, and any future, situation where the issue of licences is held up, the new applicant can be enabled to drive from the date when a valid application has been received. This requires primary legislation, and the clause was tabled in another place to that end.
Regulations made under the clause will put the person applying for a first provisional driving licence in the same position as one who is seeking renewal of his licence: that is, if he has reached the minimum age, and is not medically unfit or disqualified, he can drive as soon as the application is received at Swansea, instead of having to wait until the licence is issued. The regulations will automatically lapse after a year.
If the clause is accepted by the House, the intention is to make regulations immediately the Bill receives Royal Assent. We shall seek wide publicity for the measure,


taking the opportunity at the same time to stress that entitlement will exist only where the application is itself valid—where no order of disqualification is in force and where the applicant has reached the qualifying age and is not suffering from any of the medical conditions likely to make him a danger when driving. These are matters which the licensing centre would normally wish to check on the form, but I should emphasise that only one in 2,000 first applications is turned down. I believe that the House will agree that the very small risk of unfit persons starting to drive has to be accepted for a limited period in the interests of the majority who so badly need their entitlement.
I should also mention in this connection that the Department has been in touch with representatives of the vehicle insurers, who have agreed that their cover should extend to people who receive the right to drive under this provision.
I am sure that the House will readily appreciate the need to accept this important new clause which the Opposition accepted in the other place. It will be of great significance to thousands of would-be learner drivers.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 15 agreed to.

Clause 33

CHARGES FOR LICENSING OF CABS AND CAB DRIVERS

Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 24, line 8, at end insert—
and the sums so determined shall be such as appear to the council to be sufficient in the aggregate to cover in whole or in part—

(a) the reasonable cost of the carrying out by or on behalf of the district council of inspections of hackney carriages for the purposes of determining whether any such licence should be granted or renewed;
(b) the reasonable cost of providing hackney carriage stands; and
(c) any reasonable administrative or other costs in connection with the foregoing and with the control and supervision of hackney carriages."

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment makes it absolutely clear that district councils may not charge larger taxi licence fees than are necessary to cover their reasonable costs. Clause 33(3) removes from local authorities that have not adopted the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 for the licensing of their taxis the limitation on their ability to raise fees.
Some people in the taxi trade expressed fears that local authorities might look to that as a means of gaining revenue, of making a profit out of the charges that they imposed. It was arguable that as the Bill stood they would not have been able to behave in that way, but as there were doubts it was safest to make the position absolutely clear on the face of the Bill. I hope that the amendment satisfactorily fulfils that purpose.

Mr. Booth: As the Under-Secretary of State has said, considerable fears were expressed to members of the Standing Committee about what would happen in the future when authorities determined licensing fees. Can a district council be challenged on whether it is complying with the duty laid upon it by the Lords amendment? If for any reason taxi drivers or those in the trade contend that the charge is unreasonable, is there any means of redress?

Do they have to bring an action against the council or can the matter be referred to any body for a check or for arbitration? Will those who audit a district council's accounts have to check whether the amount that the council is raising in fees on taxis represents the reasonable costs borne by the council in carrying out inspections, providing hackney carriage stands and in administration?
It appears—I think that this was confirmed by what the Under-Secretary of State said—that the amendment applies only in those areas where the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 applies. Is there any equivalent right or limitation in areas other than London? There is also great concern about what might happen in London. Have the Government given any further thought to how they might limit the new powers of the metropolitan authorities with regard to taxis to meet the fear that the new powers to increase both the function of the carriage office and the charges arising from it will bear heavily upon taxi drivers, in clear contrast to the position until now, in which the fees have been severely limited under the original primary legislation?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As regards enforcement, it is open to any local authority elector affected by the level of a licence fee to challenge the local authority's accounts by means of a formal challenge at audit, although he does not have to go to the extent of a formal challenge. It would be open to an affected taxi licence holder simply to draw the matter to the attention of the auditor, who would no doubt then examine it.
If the auditor judged that the authority's charges were excessive, he could raise the matter with the council. If the circumstances warranted it, he could record the issue in his statutory report, which is a public document. If the local authority still did not act, it would be necessary to bring an action against it in the courts to challenge the legality of the fee. I am sure, however, that no local authority would choose to withstand a claim that the licence fees should be reduced once the auditor had judged that it was acting unlawfully and exceeding its costs.
As the right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, this provision actually deals only with those district councils which have chosen not to apply section 70 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. For the other authorities, the more up-to-date legislation already contains a power to enable the authority to charge an appropriate fee and also a limitation on it. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman if I am wrong, but I believe that the wording of the amendment closely mirrors the equivalent provision in the 1976 Act.
The Home Office is responsible for the licensing of taxis in London. The Bill removes long—obsolete restrictions on its ability to charge proper fees for licensing taxis and taxi drivers in London. The Home Office will follow set Government policy in all licensing of charging only such fees as are necessary to recover administrative costs. The taxi trade can be reassured that the matter will be properly handled, because the Home Office will disclose the basis on which costs are calculated and will explain how fees are levied.
9.30 pm
There is a close relationship between the Home Office and the taxi trade in London and I am sure that the trade will be quick to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or his successors any problems that arise if it appears that the costs of the Home Office


in administering the system are becoming excessive or that the Home Office has inadvertently started to charge fees above the cost. The Home Office will follow the policy of not making a profit but merely covering costs and it will be publicly accountable for that.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause D

GRANTS TO ASSIST THE PROVISION OF FACILITIES FOR FREIGHT HAULAGE BY INLAND WATERWAY

Lords amendment: No. 17, after clause 33, insert—
D.—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that it would be in the interests of any locality or of all or some of its inhabitants for facilities to be provided in that locality or elsewhere for or in connection with the carriage of freight by inland waterway or the loading or unloading of freight carried or intended to be carried by inland waterway, he may make grants in accordance with this section towards the provision of such facilities.
(2) Grants under this section shall be made towards capital expenditure which is to be incurred in providing such facilities, and the facilities may, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, include cargo carrying craft, inland waterway terminals, depots, access roads and equipment for use in connection with the carriage, loading or unloading of freight.
(3) Grants under this section shall be made in pursuance of an application made to the Secretary of State by the person who intends to provide the facilities and shall be supported by evidence that the Navigation Authority have given that person their approval for the provision by him of the facilities to which the application relates.
(4) The Secretary of State may, in making a grant under this section, impose such terms and conditions as he thinks fit.

Mr. Fowler: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 72.

Mr. Fowler: The purpose of the new clause and the related amendment is to provide powers to make grants towards facilities for the carriage of freight by inland waterway.
Hon. Members will be aware that a similar scheme of grants—generally known as section 8 grants—is already available to rail users under the Railways Act 1974. It meets a general desire on both sides of the House that the railways should be helped to obtain a share of the bulk traffics requiring special loading facilities and other equipment without which they would have to go by road. It has certainly been useful in diverting some bulk traffics to the railways.
The objective is to get environmentally unsuitable traffic off the roads and there is no good reason for limiting assistance to the railways. There are undoubtedly circumstances where waterway facilities could usefully achieve that objective and they should be given the same encouragement as the railways. Sir Arthur Armitage reached that conclusion in his report. I have already said that the Government agree with him and that we would want to introduce legislation for that purpose at the first opportunity.
We were pleased to accept the amendment in another place. It will meet an objective which, I believe, is desired on both sides of the House.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: As the Secretary of State has made clear, the amendment would

import into the inland waterways the same arrangements as exist in the railway industry and which were provided for in the 1974 Act.
Those of us who have a connection with the railway industry are naturally touched by the imitation, because all imitative behaviour is the most sincere form of flattery, but it would be right to put on record that the railway industry has been disappointed by the consequences of the section 8 provisions of the 1974 Act.
The take-up of section 8 grants has been well below the expectations enjoyed in 1974 and, in many areas, has been well below the ceiling provided by the Department of Transport for such grants. Therefore, we should exercise some caution about the extent to which we expect grants to be taken up for the more difficult task of diverting freight from road to waterways. There has already been a depressing experience of the difficulty of diverting freight from road to the existing rail network.
As the Secretary of State will be aware, the debate in the House of Lords was brief and was characterised by the succinct nature of the contributions that we expect from their Lordships. It gives rise to a number of questions which I should like to put to the Secretary of State and on which I would appreciate some reassurance.
As the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, the terms of the amendment are slightly more generous than the terms of section 8 of the Railways Act 1974. The amendment provides that a grant shall be payable towards cargo-carrying craft. The section 8 grant under the 1974 Act does not provide any grant towards rail rolling stock, although rolling stock can be a significant element within the investment that is required if a private enterprise decides to divert its freight on to the railways rather than on to road, particularly if it is making that judgment against the background of having a substantial transport lorry fleet.
Will the Secretary of State say why the Government have felt able to accept a change in the law which purports to bring the waterways into line with the railways but provides an additional generous element to the waterways which is not available to the railways? That prompts me to ask the Minister whether he would be willing to consider a similar amendment to section 8 of the 1974 Act, which would enable us to confer a similar advantage on those who seek a grant for a private railway siding, to enable them to get a grant for the rolling stock necessary to operate such a siding.
Secondly, will a separate budget be provided for grants under the amendment, as distinct from the section 8 grants under the 1974 Act? It would be most unfortunate for both parties if they were to end up in competition for a common pool of funds. Will the Secretary of State make it plain that funds available for these purposes will be kept distinct and separate?
Thirdly, has the Secretary of State any notion of how much he expects to disburse by way of grant and what take-up rate he expects under this provision?
I come to the final provision in the amendment, which replicates a similar provision in the 1974 Act:
The Secretary of State may, in making a grant under this section, impose such terms and conditions as he thinks fit.
That is a rather wide-ranging caveat. It gives the Secretary of State a fairly free hand. I should like to probe a little the terms and conditions that the right hon. Gentleman might think fit to impose in the circumstances of a grant for the inland waterways.
In applying his powers under the provisions of section 8 of the 1974 Act, the Secretary of State—who is merely following the precedent of previous Ministers—has had regard to whether existing road provision was adequate and has tended to take the view, as in the case of Flixborough, that where existing road provision is adequate it would not be justifiable to extend the grant to provide for a separate railway provision.
Will the Secretary of State apply the same test when faced with an application for a grant towards an inland waterway terminal? Will he have regard to existing rail or dock facilities in the vicinity? It might be regarded as unfortunate if one of the consequences of such an amendment were to be the provision of public funds in circumstances where there had already been public investment to provide dock or railway facilities to handle the cargo.
The provision is welcome to those of us with an interest in public transport, because it will provide additional resources for investment in our public transport infrastructure. But it would naturally be of great assistance to those of us with connections with the railway industry if we could have assurances that the administration of the grants under the amendment will be evenhanded with the administration of grants under section 8 of the 1974 Act.

Mr. Prescott: It is a matter not only of being evenhanded but of taking into account the consequential effects on port authorities. In the case of the Humber, many small wharves have developed at the direct expense of the port. It must also be taken into account that grants were given to those wharves by the waterways authority with the apparent intention of improving the banks, although at the same time a jetty was built for port traffic.

Mr. Cook: I have taken great care to keep my remarks general and of national application. I cannot speak with any constituency interest for the area that my hon. Friend mentioned. However, I am aware that in that area of the Humber anxiety has been expressed because there is a substantial infrastructure—with substantial employment within it—in dock facilities. Some of that is attached to the railway network. It would be regrettable if additional public funds were to be invested to make possible the provision of private inland waterway terminals, to the detriment of the revenue and passing traffic provision that has already been made at public expense.
When the Secretary of State responds to the anxieties that we have expressed, I hope that he will give us an assurance that in using the wide discretionary powers contained in the amendment he will have regard to the existing public transport infrastructure and to the existing public investment.

Mr. Booth: I welcome the Government's acceptance of the Armitage recommendation that the waterways should come within the scope of section 8 grants. It has been the Opposition Front Bench's general aim to encourage developments that will bring about a better apportionment of the freight carried in Britain, as between the railways, waterways and roads. Compared with other European countries, a disproportionately high amount of freight travels on our roads while a disproportionately small amount of freight is carried by the waterways and railways.
To date our experience of operating section 8 grants on the railways has not been one of undiminished success.

The Association of Metropolitan Authorities said that the grant has not always been paid in apparently valid cases and that many would-be applicants have been deterred from submitting formal applications after preliminary, informal discussions with the Department of Transport. In addition, a planning consent condition problem has attached to section 8 grants. It would be useful if the Secretary of State could offer some guidance on the thought that he has given to this subject.
Where the planning consent that has been given for an industrial development adjacent to a waterway requires that part of the freight is brought in over a jetty, would that debar the developer from obtaining a section 8 grant? if that problem arose, it would parallel that which has arisen for many developers. As a condition of planning consent, a requirement has been placed on them to have a rail connection. As a result, they have been told that they do not qualify for section 8 grants, because they can no longer demonstrate that section 8 financial assistance is necessary in order for them to develop the rail connection.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) that we would like an assurance that evenhandedness will be shown in the conditions that attach to section 8 for jetties, waterway developments and terminals, compared with those for rail. Armitage also raised the question whether 50 per cent. was an appropriate level of grant. Armitage suggested that the level might usefully be increased to 80 per cent. How much additional money will be made available under section 8 with the addition of waterways? Much more money will be needed if section 8 grants are to be provided in two areas instead of one.
I want to develop a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). The Secretary of State will be aware that there are considerable difficulties in the docks areas, which I do not want to go into in any depth tonight but which raise sensitivities about the way the Government assist those who are seeking to draw traffic from one area of dock, activity to another. If the grant is to be used to assist traffic to be taken into an inland wharf as opposed to a dock I hope that the Secretary of State will assure us that he will examine how far the grant will bring about a more sensible distribution of freight between roads and waterways as opposed to creating a problem in transferring freight from one part of a waterway system to another.

Mr. Fowler: I shall try to answer some of the points that have been raised. First and foremost, I thank the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) for his welcome for the intent of what is planned. I think that is probably the view of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook).
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central was not quite correct in his statement about current section 8 grants to the railway industry. Section 8 of the Railways Act 1974 was amended by section 16 of the Transport Act 1968, and railway wagons are covered by section 8 of the Act as amended.
I am confident that we have made adequate public expenditure provision for those applications for grants. If that were to prove not to be so, we should have to consider the position within the overall competing demands for public expenditure.
Concerning entitlement and eligibility, the precise administrative details for the grants have yet to be settled. I must be frank about that. We intend to administer the grants under the same rules and procedures as apply to railway grants. We intend that rail and waterway users will have the same conditions for eligibility.

Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman is discussing ah important point in distinguishing how the grants will be given, but section 8 grants for the railways normally involve someone who might be termed a single user in port terms. That expression is normally used for the miller who is bringing in flour or the timber merchant bringing in timber. It becomes more difficult when someone applies for a grant to become a third party user—that is, he uses and develops it as a port and therefore invites traffic from wherever it may come. If that is the intention for the grant, that will produce explosive conditions in Humberside, as the National Ports Council report showed in 1972.

Mr. Fowler: I should like to take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said and give his points further consideration. The precise administrative details of the grant have still to be settled. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we are still considering some parts of the Armitage report, including the part which proposes an increase in the percentage of section 8 grants.
In the period that I have been Secretary of State or Minister we have turned down only one section 8 grant for the railways. I do not think that there is any evidence under this Government or the Labour Government of grants being turned down. There is a general welcome for the principle and enabling powers in the measure, as amended. I undertake to make a fuller and more detailed statement on section 8 and how it will work.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

New Clause E

RAILWAYS ETC. BYELAWS: INCREASE IN PENALTIES

Lords amendment: No. 18, after clause 33 insert—
E. In section 67 of the Transport Act 1962 (Byelaws for railways and railway shipping services) for subsection (3) there is substituted the following subsection—
'(3) Any byelaws made under this section may provide—

(a) in the case of byelaws made by virtue of subsection (1) above, that any person contravening them shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding £200 for each offence; and
(b) in the case of byelaws made by virtue of subsection (2) above, that any person contravening them shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50 for each offence and, in the case of such a contravention which continues after conviction, to a fine not exceeding £10 for each day on which the offence so continues.'."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 19, 21, 22, 23, 69, 70
and 73.

Mr. Clarke: This broad range of amendments affect the railway industry. They contain two distinct subject matters. Lords amendment No. 18, with the related Lords amendment No. 70 to the long title, deals with the penalties that can be imposed for breaches of railway byelaws. The new clause enables the maximum penalty for the contravention of a byelaw to be raised from £50 to £200.
My hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and Faversham (Mr. Moate) tabled a similar amendment in Committee. It was ruled to be outside the Bill's scope. However, their Lordships are less inhibited in their rules of order and it was possible for an amendment to be moved and accepted. The Government are glad to accept it. I am sure that it will win widespread support in the House. It will be welcomed by railway management and unions and the travelling public, who are anxious to see good order kept on trains and hooliganism and vandalism kept to a minimum.
It will be for the railway operators to decide, subject to the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will consult the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, to which byelaws the new maximum penalty will apply. The penalties for hooliganism and vandalism should be brought up to date since £50 has been the maximum since 1977.
An obvious candidate is the new byelaw confirmed by my right hon. Friend last August, which enables British Rail to ban alcohol on designated trains. That was one of the first measures that we took following my right hon. Friend's interest in the problem of violence and alcoholism on trains and the inconvenience that it causes to the railway staff and the public. It has already proved its worth. Penalties must be brought up to date to be effective.
The second broad subject is covered by amendments Nos. 19, 21, 22, 23, 69 and 73. It deals with fires caused by railway engines—that is, steam engines. The purpose is to raise the limit of compensation which railway companies are liable to pay without proof of negligence for damage to agricultural land or crops by fires caused by sparks from railway engines. The clause also provides that the Secretary of State can adjust the figure by statutory instrument. That is ancient legislation. It was last revised in 1923. The limit of liability is fixed at £200. That is inadequate. The clause raises the limit to £3,000, roughly the present-day equivalent of £200 in 1923.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) unfortunately cannot be with us this evening. He has discussed the matter with me since it appeared on the Lords Order Paper. Since he knew that he could not be here tonight, he delivered by hand a letter emphasising the points that concern him and the independent preserved railway operators who are likely to be the most directly affected.

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman must have gone to Hyde Park.

Mr. Clarke: I am not sure what the rules of compensation are in Hyde Park. I am not sure where my hon. Friend is, but his duties have taken him elsewhere.
In 1923 the railway companies most affected were the giant public companies. Nowadays the provision is more likely to apply to the more private trusts and independent operators, whose resources are limited. There are about three steam engines still running on British Rail tracks. We


have consulted the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, and the Forestry Commission, which are anxious to see the limit raised to keep it up to date. We have also consulted the Association of Minor Railway Companies and the Associaton of Railway Preservation Societies as well as the British Railways Board.
This is a matter that the railway companies will meet by insurance. There should be no difficulty for them in making a modest adjustment to their insurance. The figure of £3,000 is easily covered by public liability insurance of all kinds. I trust that it will not cause the companies excessive difficulties. It may avoid the need for tedious litigation in small claims if the limit can be raised to a figure that establishes clearly the compensation that can be recovered without proof of negligence.
Another matter that concerned my hon. Friend, through his close contact with the preserved railways' interest, is that £3,000 should be expressed as the limit in the Bill. However, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State can adjust the figure by statutory instrument. It is the intention to begin at £3,000. The only reason for including the provision that it can be adjusted in future by statutory instrument is to avoid the trouble of having to come back to the House with primary legislation every time one wants to adjust the figure. There is no intention to go to some new level of compensation without proof of liability, but it will be necessary, from time to time, to adjust the figure for inflation.
This is what is meant by the provision—no more and no less. No doubt a year or two will elapse before it is adjusted again. However, some Secretary of State will eventually want to adjust it and a regulation, subject to control by the House, is a more appropriate means of doing so than waiting for a new Bill to come along to be used as a legislative vehicle. No doubt lack of parliamentary time has stopped the limit being raised since 1923. There must be a more sensible way of arranging these things.
Amendment No. 21 is a technical amendment needed to enable repeals in schedule 2 relating to the Railway Fires Act (1905) Amendment Act 1923 and to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 to come into force on the passing of the Bill without the need for a statutory instrument.

Mr. Booth: On the simple principle that prevention is better than cure and, in some cases, better than compensation, I suggest to the Minister that a possibly better way of tackling the question of fires caused by sparks from railway engines is to go ahead with a major electrification programme.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 19 agreed to.

New clause G

AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULES 7 AND 8 OF PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLES ACT 1981

Lords amendment: No. 20, to insert—

"G. In the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981?—

(a) in Schedule 7 (consequential amendments), paragraph 24 is omitted;
(b) in Schedule 8 (repeals)—

(i) in the entry relating to the Transport Act 1968 the words "In section 145, subsection (2)" are omitted, and

(ii) in the entry relating to the Transport Act 1980 after the words "In Schedule 5, Part I" there are inserted the words "(except paragraph 13)" and for the words "the Minibus Act 1977 and the Transport Act 1978" there are substituted the words "and the Minibus Act 1977 and paragraphs 2 to 4 of the entry relating to the Transport Act 1978."."

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: with this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 71 and 74.

Mr. Clarke: These amendments correct a drafting error that was unfortunately made in the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. That was a consolidation measure. The repeals provision has inadvertently repealed, as at present drafted, three important small provisions that we would like to see continue to remain in force. I see that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) agrees. It would be wrong to repeal any of these provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34

REPEALS

Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 24 agreed to.

Schedule 1

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTING SECTIONS 1 TO 3

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 29, line 7, at end insert—
This paragraph applies equally where the lease and sub-lease were granted after, but in pursuance of an agreement entered into before, the commencement of this Part.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical revision that I explained in Committee to enable the arrangements made for the leasing of some of Sealink's newest ships in which the Railways Board is involved to continue when Sealink is in the private sector. This is a technical amendment to extend the saving from ships already under lease when the Bill is enacted to ships not yet leased and subject to a legal agreement to lease. It is a precautionary amendment inserted in the other place in case the last ferry to be delivered by Harland and Wolff to Sealink was late and in case the Bill did not adequately protect Sealink's interests once it was delivered.

10 pm

Mr. Prescott: I understand that the reason for the amendment lies with the "St. David". The agreement in respect of the vessel was signed last Friday. The amendment is no longer relevant. Presumably we cannot arrest our momentum, and we shall have to go forward with the amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: With the leave of the House. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on spotting that which he has outlined. We believed that the "St. David" would be delivered after the Bill had received its Royal Assent. However, the vessel was delivered a few days ago. Strictly speaking, the provision is redundant. However, to


return to their Lordships to remove it would present a difficulty. Although the provision is redundant, it will do no harm. I trust that the House will accept the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 5

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTING SECTIONS 15 TO 17

Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 49, line 29, leave out "continued"

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in the amendment.

Mr. Clarke: This is a technical amendment to enable a pension to be paid to the chairman of the National Ports Council, Sir Arthur Peterson. At present the Bill provides only for the continued payment of pension to former council members who have pension schemes by analogy, as it were, to the NPC staff pension scheme.
When Sir Arthur Peterson was appointed chairman last summer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State offered him a by-analogy pension scheme if he so wished. It has taken a considerable time to resolve Sir Arthur's pension position. It seems to have taken a surprisingly long time, but the period that has elapsed is not unusual. The taking of advice on an individual's pension arrangements can produce unbelievable complexities. However, Sir Arthur has decided to accept the offer made to him by my right hon. Friend. We are proceeding on that basis. The Civil Service Department has given approval as required by the Harbours Act 1964.
The amendment is a mere technicality. It deletes "continued" from paragraph 9(3)(b) to allow for new pension payments to be made to Sir Arthur when the council is wound up. My right hon. Friend thought it right to make the amendment to enable him to honour the commitment that he gave to Sir Arthur when he was appointed chairman.

Mr. Prescott: The amendment is technical and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman needs to be more forthcoming. It is clear that the amendment was moved in another place for the very issue of privilege that was mentioned by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realised that the word "continued" was relevant when I understood that the chairman is not presently in receipt of a pension and, as I understand it, could not be paid a pension by the Secretary of State if no amendment had been made.
Why is it necessary for Sir Arthur Peterson to have a pension? Sir Arthur was a civil servant for 40 years. Presumably he retired on a full Civil Service pension. Following that career, he became chairman of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company for some years. Presumably he received some form of remuneration and possibly a pension.
Sir Arthur was the chairman of the National Ports Council for 18 months at the very outside. He is a pensioner in another job and presumably he is receiving another pension. He is past pensionable age. What is the reason for giving a pension to a member of the board? I understand that officials and employees of the NPC will

be in receipt of a pension. That is required and is in accordance with pension protection following the abolition of the council. As I understand it, the Secretary of State has to agree that a pension be paid to a chairman of the board and presumably to any other board officer. There have been about five or six chairmen of the National Ports Council, and not all of them have necessarily received pensions—or can the Minister confirm whether they all received pensions for their period of office? If not, why have two chairmen been selected to receive a pension? It is not an automatic requirement. So why solely two? If criteria are used, why are they used for a person who has done the job for only 18 months, presumably at a time when the House will be giving him compensation because we are abolishing the National Ports Council?
Sir Arthur Peterson is on full pension from a previous Civil Service occupation, and, he having moved to another occupation, chairman of the National Ports Council, presumably we are now prepared, in a special clause of the Bill, agreed by the Secretary of State, to give him another pension—on top, presumably, of compensation, another golden handshake, for 18 months' service. The Minister will have to give us more information to justify the inclusion of a special clause in the Bill to give Sir Arthur Peterson another pension and, no doubt, a golden handshake. Will the Minister elucidate a little further on the technicality?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is not suggesting that there has been any secrecy about the matter. I agree that, on the face of it, it is impossible to see what the amendment is about. The hon. Gentleman discovered what it was about, I hope, with the help of the notes that we sent to him explaining the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. Prescott: I thought that I had said that it was the advice notes that gave me the first indication that the clause was about a pension. The Minister will see that the advice notes are very brief, and all the information about whether it is normal for chairmen of the National Ports Council to be given pensions had to be obtained by research in a sensitive area in a very short time. That was not available in the notes.

Mr. Clarke: I accept that, and the hon. Gentleman was ahead of me in his research until a moment ago. I confirm that one previous chairman received a pension. Another previous chairman received a lump sum. Two previous chairmen did not receive any pensions or lump sums. I do not know whether anyone can recall why that happened. I can only assume that they were wealthy men.
We have not introduced a new policy in appointing Sir Arthur Peterson last year. The Secretary of State's power to determine pension arrangements is in the Harbours Act 1964, and the policy that my right hon. Friend has followed continues the previous policy for board members that pensionability is offered to those who serve two days a week or more, as Sir Arthur does. The pension arrangement is usually the same as that for the staff of the body concerned, but a board member may not normally be a member of the staff scheme because he would then be in a position to enhance his own pension arrangements. A board member's scheme is therefore generally a separate arrangement by analogy with the staff scheme, but he may


opt to retain the pension terms of a previous employment. In either case. the revised terms are subject to ministerial approval.
When Sir Arthur Peterson was appointed as chairman in June 1980, the Secretary of State followed that policy and offered him a pension arrangement by analogy with the staff scheme. As would be the case with any other member of the board, it was open to Sir Arthur to choose instead to continue with the insurance-based pension taken out while he was with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. He had the choice of which kind of pension provision he wished.
Some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks implied that it was wrong for Sir Arthur to get any pension entitlement for his service, because he already has his full Civil Service pension. I suppose that that is arguable, but there is no reason why someone should not continue to have a pension arrangement that would normally be expected to go with that work to continue to enhance his pension expectations. People in most walks of life who continue working are entitled to expect to continue to accrue further occupational pension rights as they move from job to job. There is no reason why Sir Arthur should not do that, as long as the pension arrangements are reasonable and not out of proportion to his work.
Sir Arthur was offered a choice by my right hon. Friend, entirely in line with the long-established policy on board pensions. It required detailed consultation, no doubt, for Sir Arthur and his advisers, and also for the Department, to finalise this continuation arrangement with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company's pension scheme.
When the matter had been fully examined, it became clear that the more attractive option for Sir Arthur—he was entitled to choose the more attractive option—was to take up my right hon. Friend's offer of a so-called analogy arrangement. Unfortunately, by the time that decision had been taken, the Bill had been drafted. We are about to put matters right to match the option. That will require a change in the legislation to introduce the new arrangement that will give Sir Arthur his new pension arrangements.
The 1980 premium due in respect of the insurance arrangement for the insurance-based pension with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company has already been paid. That arrangement will stand for the first part of Sir Arthur's appointment. It is to be replaced by an analogy arrangement from 1 April 1981. We shall be dealing with a short period of service and a minor enhancement of pension rights. The cost is small, and Sir Arthur will be making a contribution. It is not a matter of enormous significance.
The offer was quite properly made by my right hon. Friend to Sir Arthur when he appointed him last summer. There is nothing improper in Sir Arthur taking this long to resolve the matter, because it is extremely complex. It is only right that my right hon. Friend and the Government should seek to amend the Bill to enable them to honour the undertaking to Sir Arthur. He will not receive an out-of-proportion pension. Once in payment, Sir Arthur's pension will be increased in line with any future pension increase orders made under current legislation. It will be an index-linked, public sector pension that will provide a very small addition to Sir Arthur's pension rights.
Sir Arthur will not receive a golden handshake when his term of appointment expires and when the NPC ceases to exist. That was made clear to him when he was first

appointed. At that time the Government were already contemplating the abolition of the NPC. It was quite obviously an interim arrangement, and no offer was made of future compensation. Sir Arthur knew that perfectly well and never expected to be compensated when his appointment came to an end. We are talking about a small addition to a pension arrangement. The arrangement was made while pursuing an established policy which had been adopted in the case of Sir Arthur's predecessor. It would be wrong to refuse the amendment that would allow my right hon. Friend to put the full arrangement into effect.

Mr. Prescott: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will reply to the debate. This is a complex area. I have not suggested that anything improper has been carried out by the Minister or Sir Arthur. I have been attempting to understand exactly what arrangement has been reached. As a special clause is to be included in the Bill to deal with it, the House is entitled to know what it is voting for. I fully accept that Sir Arthur will not receive compensation because of the short period of time that he has been involved. Presumably, the pension requirement must be taken into account.
The judgment as to whether a small amount is involved is a matter of detail. I wonder whether it is a small amount when compared to that received by the ordinary pensioner. If it is index-linked, it is probably far better.
Sir Arthur is a pensioner receiving another pension. Civil servants are given very attractive rates on retirement because it is considered that their retirement may well mean retirement. I think that Sir Arthur retired as a permanent secretary, a post which provides an attractive pension. Therefore, we question the judgment in regard to the appointment. If we had had more notice of the matter, we might have opposed the amendment. However, with events as they are, we must let the matter lie—but not without recording our dissatisfaction.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Schedule 6

AMENDMENTS OF THE HARBOURS ACT 1964

Lords amendment: No. 27, in page 55, line 16. leave out
an order which is opposed

and insert—
—

(a) a harbour revision order relating to a harbour in England or Wales; or
(b) a harbour empowerment order relating to a harbour or 10 works to be carried out in England or Wales,

and, in either case, the order is opposed.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 38.

Mr. Clarke: The amendments cover a wide area of orders under the Harbours Act 1964. I shall begin with a summary of their provisions and announce the detailed arrangements. If I were to wade into a full description of amendments Nos. 27 to 38, I should read a great deal of complicated and technical matter into the record.
Amendments Nos. 27, 29 to 31, 33 and 34 are aimed at excluding the Scottish harbour revision and harbour empowerment orders from the effects of paragraph 4 of


schedule 6. Paragraph 4 of schedule 6 amends the 1964 Act to provide that in England and Wales the harbour revision or empowerment order is not to be subject to special parliamentary procedure unless an objection which is outstanding when the order is made is renewed by the objector. It was our original intention to extend those arrangements to Scotland as well. However, when we looked at the complexities of doing that and the amendments that would be required we decided to leave the existing law on Scottish harbour revision unchanged. In Scotland a special parliamentary procedure is applied to Scottish orders before they are made, and as that appears to meet the requirements of Scottish harbours adequately the Government have decided to leave well alone.
Amendments Nos. 28 and 32 clarify the provisions governing the coming into operation and the publication of notices of orders relating to England and Wales. They make it clear that if an objection is made to an order at draft stage, but is not maintained when the order is made—after the Secretary of State has given those who gave notice of objection at draft stage 28 days' notice to maintain their objection—the order will not be subject to special parliamentary procedure.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 amend two technical defects in section 27A of the Harbours Act 1964. That section was introduced on Report in the House to meet one of the major complaints about the ports' charging policies. We had considerable debates about the matter at an earlier stage in our proceedings in the House. The first error which gives rise to amendment No. 35 may come about when a person objects to paying a combined charge for both dues and cargo handling charges, as our new section 27A allows a port user to object to paying a combined charge. However, the harbour authority may not have an appropriate due included in its published list of ship passenger and goods dues. In those circumstances, if an authority had not already published a due, the user would not have to pay for the use that he had already made of the harbour. Amendment No. 35 seeks to ensure that the user cannot object to paying a combined charge made in respect of use of a harbour or the provision of services that he has already enjoyed.
Amendment No. 36 concerns the definition of those harbour authorities to be subject to the new section 27A. The authorities subject to the new combined charge provisions were the same as those subject to section 26 of the Harbours Act 1964. Section 26 does not apply to the British Transport Docks Board, the British Railways Board or the British Waterways Board. Those bodies would therefore be excluded from the requirements of the new provision on combined charges. That was never anyone's intention during the debates in Committee. Therefore, amendment No. 36 makes it clear they will be covered.
Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 enable regulations to be made to exempt certain classes of statutory harbour undertakers from the new version of section 42 of the Harbours Act 1964. These are the Bill's accounts provisions. Under this new provision, the accounts provisions of the Companies Act will apply to statutory harbours, subject to such modification or addition as my right hon. Friend may prescribe by regulations.
The intention of the two amendments is to limit the application of the new version of section 42 to harbour

undertakers from whom the Secretary of State needs to have information, because at present the power that we have taken is too wide. We propose to use the exemption power that we seek mainly to exclude from the section what are called "own account undertakers"—that is, undertakers who operate a harbour ancillary to their main business which is used wholly or mainly for handling raw materials of goods that they may manufacture for the purpose of their own business. That will include the oil companies, the British Steel Corporation and others with their own harbour facilities. There is no point in my right hon. Friend requiring Companies Act accounts from such harbours.
With that attempt at a potted version of these Harbour Act amendments, I hope that I have given an adequate explanation and that the House will agree with the Lords amendments.

Mr. Prescott: I do not wish to go through the pieces of legislation relating to these amendments, particularly those relating to the harbour reorganisation schemes. I tried to wade through it today, and I do not want to be reminded of that research.
In the sense that we distinguish between Scotland, England and Wales, the situation is now improved by the fact that the harbour revision orders will not automatically be put through the statutory parliamentary procedures if there are no objections. I understand that the difficulty for Scotland was that two or three pages of amendments had to be considered. The Scottish legal procedures have a further addition, which seems to make their regulations somewhat better than ours. We therefore accept amendments Nos. 27, 28, and 30.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 relate to appeals against dues and differentiate between charges and dues. We spent some time on this controversial matter in Committee. It can be seen from the new section 27A relating to appeals on port charges that the Minister has discovered that there are certain difficulties, as is ever the case with this complex industry. The Port of London Authority was cited by the Minister as an example of how the charges are combined, and his explanation was satisfactory.
I turn to the statutory boards to which these appeal functions would not apply. The Minister mentioned the British Transport Docks Board, the British Waterways Board and the British Railways Board. I presume that the British Steel Corporation is also affected, as it owns certain wharves, certainly in my area. But this will not apply when they are privatised. Presumably, if they are privatised, the argument about the British Railways Board's responsibility for harbours, as embodied in Sealink, will not be as relevant. I take it that the same will apply to the British Transport Docks Board and the British Waterways Board. However, I am not sure how the British Steel Corporation will be affected, as it is not a statutory board.
It improves the Bill to bring these harbours into the appeals system. Labour Members were concerned to ensure that there was provision for appeals, albeit relating to the limited area of dues and not to charges.
As the Minister knows, my own area is at present appealing against the dues. I am not sure whether the Minister's Department or the National Ports Council is dealing with it. The fishing industry hopes that a conclusion will not be reached during the Summer Recess


and that we shall not have to knock on his door to prevent Sir Humphrey Browne from again going on the rampage to reduce the size of the port of Hull.
There is a substantial point of difference about the third set of amendments which deals with accounts. The Minister explained why this information should not be made available by all port authorities, but that strikes at the heart of the information that should be made available now that it is assessed for port authority development. This was a major difference between the two sides of the Committee.
We think that access to information is vital. The Minister's view is that, if we do not have a central body, he will have to deal with the matter, and he does not want to be bogged down with all sorts of information from the port authorities. He argues that what he calls own-account bodies—a timber merchant who simply brings in timber, or the miller who brings in only flour—are not developing into other businesses.
Other own-account bodies include British Steel and the British Waterways Board. They may have wharves that the Minister considers to be own-account, but they are developing into other businesses. They are small enough, but they are becoming an increasing threat. It seems logical to ask why one should bother with information from own-account bodies, as they are not port authorities, but I refer the Minister to the study carried out as recently as 1972 by the National Ports Council, which tried to understand the full implications of single users compared with third-party users. Single users, which the council called own-account users, were responsible for traffic amounting to 52 million tonnes in 1972, 74 per cent. of all non-scheme traffic—a considerable amount. In the non-fuel trade it was responsible for 3·3 million tonnes, compared with 15 million tonnes in third-party account ports.
My point is that own-account bodies cannot be assumed to be operating solely for the one business—the steel board bringing in steel and the waterways board bringing in products relevant to that industry. They are a source of extra business activity, and they are causing considerable concern.
With that we may couple the fact that section 8 grants may mean an advance in small wharf developments. That could be a very sensitive and difficult area. I welcome the Secretary of State's saying earlier that he was prepared to examine section 8 and that he had no desire to see a repeat of the early 1970s.
I wish to correct the Minister's approach to own-accounts in the docks. He cannot ignore what is happening in own-account areas, which can make up an important part of port activity. He will have to address himself to it in the future. Denying the provision of information for the Minister by statutory right is not a step in the right direction, but we shall accept it for the present, in view of the circumstances.
I recognise that, although the National Ports Council had a statutory right to receive information from all ports, many ports did not provide the information, but the power existed to demand it. The Secretary of State is saying "You have no statutory obligation to give me that information." I think that that is wrong. We must accept it, but I warn the Minister of the consequences.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
I may not have made myself clear about the application of the procedure for appeals against harbour dues, which we conceded in Committee. The amendment's purpose is to bring the British Transport Docks Board, the British Waterways Board and the British Railways Board within the definition that was subject to the appeals procedure. They were left out inadvertently by our choosing a definition taken from section 26 of the Harbours Act 1964. The new appeals procedure will apply to the British Transport Docks Board when it is transferred to the private sector; Associated British Ports will definitely be subject to the procedure.
As for the exemption of own-account ports, the amendment merely gives my right hon. Friend a power to exempt a particular class of harbour undertaking from the regulations that would statutorily require it to submit accounts and reports to him. The class that we have in mind consists of the own-account operators, because most of them are running a harbour undertaking that is subordinate to their main business—exporting their own goods or importing more materials for their own business—and they are not engaged in general trade.
I shall bear in mind the points made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) about the wider interests of one CT two of his own-account operators. We still have to draft the regulations that would exempt a particular class, and the precise definition of groups to be exempted will be considered when we draw them up. The only purpose is not to deny ourselves essential information but to stop burdening authorities and ourselves with the preparation and submission of accounts when there is no general Government interest in various subordinate activities.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 38 agreed to.

Schedule 7

POINTS TO BE ENDORSED

Lords amendments Nos. 39 and 40 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 41, in page 65, line 18, column 3, leave out "5" and insert "2–5".

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 44.

Mr. Clarke: The procedure at this stage of a Bill involves our dealing with the amendments in the order in which they were dealt with, or certainly numbered, by another place. We therefore dot about from one subject to another.
We return here to the points system being introduced by the Government for endorsing the licences of those who commit endorsable traffic offences. The House will recall that when the Bill was first introduced we proposed that all offences should attract a fixed number of what are now to be called penalty points. I remember trying to persuade the Standing Committee that this was desirable not only to ensure that there were no discrepancies of practice between different courts and different parts of the county but to avoid a great deal of court time being taken up in


otherwise straightforward cases by offenders pleading for the lowest possible number of points in order to reduce the risk of disqualification.
Members on both sides of the Committee expressed some disquiet about the system and argued particularly that special circumstances applied to the group of offences comprising failure to stop and failure to report an accident. On consideration of that debate, the Government agreed that those offences should attract a range of points because they differed so widely in the degree of seriousness of individual offences.
Several members of the Committee expressed disquiet on a wider front than simply that of failing to stop or report. Similar views were expressed in another place, and after further debate there amendments were pressed on the Government to introduce a range of points for driving without due care and attention—careless driving, as it is loosely called—and driving while uninsured. On consideration of the discussion, and bearing in mind that the arguments urged upon the Government in another place were strikingly similar to those urged upon us by Members on both sides of the Standing Committee, the Government decided to accept the amendments.
Now that discretion has been left to magistrates' courts in all those groups of offences—failure to stop, careless driving and driving while uninsured—when the Bill finally receives Royal Assent it will give discretion to magistrates in the points that they apply in nearly 20 per cent. of the total traffic offences that come before them, compared with 2 per cent. under the Bill as originally drafted.
Nevertheless, a broad range of opinion has identified these as offences where justice and fairness demand that some discretion should be given to magistrates. I hope that the changes made by Lords amendments will therefore receive widespread agreement.

Mr. Stott: The Under-Secretary of State has already referred to the fairly prolonged and interesting discussion in the Standing Committee on the new concept of penalty points. I well recall those debates. I believe that I was one of those who proposed on behalf of the Opposition a flexible range of points for certain categories of offences. I recall being supported by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), who, as a practising magistrate with a good deal of experience in these matters, saw the logic of the argument. Schedule 7, with the amendments, is much better now than it was when it was originally presented to us.
I am pleased that their Lordships took up two of the points that we alluded to in Committee. Careless or inconsiderate driving can involve varying degrees of seriousness and we felt that it ought not to attract a five-point penalty and that some flexibility should be built into the system. I am pleased that the Lords amendment covers that.
Using, causing or permitting the use of a motor vehicle uninsured and unsecured against third party risks originally attracted a low rating. That worried us and we are glad that the Lords amendment proposes to increase the points penalty from four to eight. That reflects the concern of hon. Members. The Opposition find much satisfaction in schedule 7, as amended, and we hope that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) will not press his opposition to the amendments.

Mr. D. A. Trippier: I shall refer mainly to amendment No. 44. There is much to be welcomed in the Bill, but I am unhappy about the introduction of a variable points system for any motoring offences. My interest stems from my work as a magistrate and parliamentary spokesman for the Association of Magisterial Officers, for which I receive no financial benefit.
Amendments relating to the penalty points system introduce an extra tier of judicial discretion which, in practice, will be cumbersome to administer while not enhancing the administration of justice. It is not disputed that the time is ripe to replace the three endorsments in three years totting-up system with something that is more flexible and will produce fairer results.
The new scheme provides that motorists will be awarded a number of points on conviction of an endorsable offence, and the number of points will vary according to the offence. When the motorist has attained 12 penalty points within three years, he will be in peril of being disqualified from driving.
The Bill as amended provides that variable points should be awarded for the following offences: failing to stop after an accident, between five and nine points; failing to report an accident, between four and nine points; careless or inconsiderate driving, between two and five points; and using a motor vehicle without insurance, between four and eight points.
The magistrate's courts will have to decide, for example, whether a driving without due care offence is a two or a five point case and whether a failure to stop is a five or a nine point case. However, the majority of motoring cases are dealt with under the "guilty by letter" procedure. The defendant is served with a brief statement of the facts alleged, often prepared by police clerical staff from the reporting officer's notebook. If the defendant accepts his guilt, he may write to the court with a plea of guilty and give details of mitigating circumstances. The statement of facts and mitigating circumstances are read aloud to the court and the justices decide the penalty.
Under the amended Bill, if the offence is endorsable, the court will apply the appropriate number of penalty points and if the offence is in the special category it will decide the appropriate number of penalty points on the sliding scale.
To achieve any degree of uniformity between one bench and another will be impossible. Some courts may decide that a certain offence should always attract the maximum penalty points and others may be more liberal in their view, so a lottery results.
Reference was made to this by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State on Report, when he said:
When we drafted the Bill we suggested fixed points penalties in each case, and did not leave any discretion to magistrates in respect of the number of points to be imposed once an offence had been proved or admitted.
That is accurate and I agree with it. My hon. and learned Friend went on to say:
One reason for not including an element of discretion was that we thought that if discretion was left to the magistrates' courts in each case the result would be an inevitable inconsistency between courts in different parts of the country. This could give rise to a feeling of unfairness among motorists. We felt, too, that if discretion was left to magistrates many motorists in routine cases in which they were happy to admit their


guilt would feel the need to go to the magistrates' court to argue for the lowest number of points possible."—[Official Report, 14 April 1981; Va. 89, c. 239.]
That is absolutely accurate.
I refer also to the speech made by the Lord Advocate in the other place. He said:
Merely to create a discretion does not necessarily mean that people have the idea that all is just, because they may find that with exactly the same offence with exactly the same circumstances in two magistrates' courts, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, earlier, one court is soft-hearted and the other hard-hearted, one gives five points and the other eight points."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 June 1981; Vol. 421, c. 57.]
On occasions a minor fault on the part of a driver may give rise to a prosecution for careless driving, where the consequences of the offence are very serious. In deciding the number of points, is the court to take account of his degree of fault or the consequences of the offence? If it is to be the latter, should the courts take into account contributory negligence on the part of the other driver?
I think it right to leave the consequences to the civil courts to determine and that the justices should deal with the elements of the offence. I feel that many motorists who would have been content to admit their guilt under a fixed points system will now feel the need to attend the court to argue for the lowest number of penalty points. The resulting work load on the courts will be insupportable. I favour a fixed points scale as a practical way of administering the new system, leaving no one in doubt as to where he stands upon conviction of a points offence.
The magistrates already have a wide discretion over the amount of the fine, whether or not there are special reasons for not ordering an endorsement and whether or not to disqualify in certain cases. To introduce a further tier of discretion is unnecessary.
The flexible points system will lead to fewer pleas of guilty by letter, longer speeches in mitigation, more not guilty pleas in order to ascertain the degree of culpability when it comes to considering the number of points the offence may carry if there is a conviction, more appeals to the Crown court and, finally, more applications for legal aid—all leading to more time being spent by benches when dealing with a large volume of road traffic work, with resultant delays and increased cost.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) knows that I have considerable sympathy with his point of view, because he has probably looked up the speeches that I made in Committee and on Report. I then tried to put forward the point of view that he is now arguing.
As my hon. Friend has observed, the Lord Advocate argued the same points in the other place on the questions of careless driving and driving whilst uninsured. Although I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support of our earlier views, those views did not prevail among the majority as the Bill proceeded through both Houses. As we have heard, the official Opposition welcome the Lords amendments. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), who is a magistrate, argued the case for discretion strongly. I recall support from my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) and for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) and from several others. It became clear that those arguments were not prevailing.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale has a close connection with the Magistrates' Courts Association and he has passed its views on to me. However, on the whole, magistrates take the opposite view. In the other place Lord Fortescue, on behalf, I believe, of the Magistrates' Association, argued strongly for discretion. The Government must respond to parliamentary opinion. We have put the case and listened to the arguments. The time has come to accept that my original opinion and that still adhered to by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale is a minority one and we should accept the Lords amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 42 to 44 agreed to.

Schedule 8

PROVISIONS SUBSTITUTED FOR SECTIONS 6 TO 12 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1972

Lords amendment: No. 45, in page 67, line 36, at end insert
the requirement is made under subsection (2) and

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment corrects a small drafting error made in the drink-drive provisions in the Bill. By accident the Government had changed the law in the original Bill and extended the power that the police now have to require a driver to provide a breath specimen at a police station after an accident to other cases where a breath specimen could be required.
In theory, that would enable a policeman who stopped a driver in circumstances in which he could, properly, require a breath test to take him to the police station if he so wished. That would be tantamount to arrest before a breathalyser had been administered. This was a pure drafting error, and the amendment restores the status quo and the law to the condition that we should all prefer.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 46 and 47 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 48, in page 69, line 1, leave out from "be" to end of line 6.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 49 and 50.

Mr. Clarke: Again, this is a minor drafting amendment. It gives the police more flexibility by removing the distinction that the original Bill made between the circumstances in which they could require a specimen of blood or urine in cases under section 6, which deals with excess alcohol, and those under section .5, which covers impairment by drink or drugs or both.
We are dealing with section 5 cases. Often the police have to decide whether they are dealing with a person who is affected by alcohol or drugs. That may not be easy. If they have the evidence of a screening test or an evidential breath test, problems are unlikely. However, a person may refuse the screening test and an evidential breath machine may be unavailable. In that case, there will be a difficulty. The amendment will eliminate the possible restrictions that the police might face on what might be analysed in certain cases. They will be able to decide for themselves


the type of specimen that they will require. They will therefore be provided with the evidence by which to decide whether an appropriate charge should be brought.
I should make it clear that the amendment will not impose any additional requirement on the suspect. It simply gives the police the discretion to require blood or urine. There is no question of allowing them to require both. As the Bill was originally drafted, it did not give the police sufficient flexibility to decide in every case which was more suitable.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 49 and 50 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 51, in page 72, line 20, leave out "6" and insert "5".

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 52.

Mr. Clarke: The amendment gives a sensible definition of the word "drug" for the purpose of section 5 offences. It makes it clear that we are talking not only about medicines but about glue sniffing and nearly every other intoxicant that can affect someone's ability to drive a vehicle.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 52 to 62 agreed to.

Schedule 10

ROAD HUMPS

Lords amendment: No. 63, in page 81, line 32, at end insert—
(5) In this paragraph and in paragraphs 8 and 9(1) below, and without prejudice to paragraph 9(2) below, the expression "highway" includes any road over which the public have a right of way.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 64 to 67.

Mr. Clarke: The amendments deal with the extremely important matter of road humps in Scotland. They make it clear that the power to provide road humps in Scotland will be the same as the power to provide road humps in England and Wales. It will extend not only to the highways that are publicly maintained but to what are known as private streets—that is, any road upon which there is a public right of way.
I am sure that people will sleep more quietly in Scotland now that this important change is to be made if the House agrees with the Lords in the amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 64 to 67 agreed to.

Schedule 12

REPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 68, in page 86, leave out lines 22 and 23.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment of such breathtaking triviality that I am sure the House will be content to accept it without any detailed explanation from me.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 69 to 74 agreed to. [One with Special Entry.]

Orders of the Day — Steel Industry

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Before the Minister rises, I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7305/81 and 7847/81 on production quotas for steel, No. 7306/81 on state aids to the steel industry and No. 7825/81 on pricing rules for steel distributors; and welcomes the agreement reached in the Council of Ministers on 24th June as being in the interests of the steel industry.
I should apologise to the House for making a rather longer speech than I should wish at this time of night, or at any time. These are complicated matters and there should be a full explanation of them on the record, even if the House is not overfull to discuss them.
The debate focuses on four European Community documents which have been recommended for debate by the Select Committee on European legislation. They form the basis for the package of Community measures to combat the continuing crisis in the steel industry, on which the Council of Ministers reached agreement ad referendum at its meetings on 4 June and 24 June which I attended. In passing, I should say that both meetings were long, arduous and difficult.
The agreement was subsequently confirmed by written procedure but I maintained a reserve pending parliamentary consideration of the decisions on State aids to the steel industry and en the extension to distributors of the ECSC pricing rules.
As I have explained to the Chairman of the Select Committee, I did not feel that I could place a parliamentary reserve on the renewal of quotas under article 58 of the ECSC Treaty for certain products since I judged it imperative to ensure that final approval was given before the previous quota arrangement expired on June 30. I hope the House will agree that in doing so I acted in the best interests of the United Kingdom and of our steel industry.
This is an important and extensive package of measures which may conveniently be considered under four headings—production restraint during the present extremely difficult market situation, prices rules, State aids and the restructuring of the steel industry and the social consequences of steel redundancies.
Before discussing the measures in detail, I hardly need to remind hon. Members of the persistent problems besetting the European steel industry in the last few years. Basically, they are the result of excess capacity resulting from substantial investment, much of it State-financed, combined with a much lower demand than expected. The result has been uneconomically low prices for steel.
In January I explained to the House the sudden aggravation of these problems last summer, in particular the rapid fall in demand and the slump in prices. The accompanying breakdown of mutual confidence between producers resulted in the declaration of a state of manifest crisis by the Commission and the introduction, with the Council's unanimous assent, of mandatory production quotas under article 58 of the ECSC Treaty for most ECSC products.
These measures were introduced for a period of nine months only, to expire on 30 June, by which time it was hoped that the market would have stabilised sufficiently to allow prices to rise to more realistic levels.
There has been some improvement, but it is unevenly spread and inadequate because of the continuing excess capacity and depressed demand while, on the other hand, costs continue to rise. It became evident not only that a continuation of anti-crisis market restraint measures was necessary but that, to secure a longer-term solution, more needed to be done on a Community basis to eliminate the excess capacity over foreseeable demand, which is the underlying cause of instability. It would be necessary to eradicate the artificial retention of excess and inefficient capacity which has been, and still is, encouraged with subsidies.
I should like to turn in more detail to the measures which make up the new package. Document 7305/81, besides reporting generally on the state of the steel industry, contains a proposal for the renewal of quotas under article 58 for hot rolled steel coil and the products derived from it. We, and indeed the Governments of member States generally, prefer necessary production restraint to be maintained by voluntary agreement between the producers, provided that that is on a fair and effective basis.
The Community producers had been meeting regularly since early in the year in an attempt to reach such voluntary agreements, observance of which could be monitored by the Commission using the administrative machinery set up to oversee the operation of the mandatory quotas.
By mid-May, however, ft was clear that, although a large measure of agreement had been achieved, the operation of voluntary restraint would not be possible for hot rolled coil and derivatives, the largest product category, accounting for about half of Community ECSC total production, because of the unwillingness of one German firm to accept the necessary reduction in output. It was vital to ensure that a workable arrangement for this sector would continue to exist after 30 June, and the Council therefore agreed on 4 June to a renewal of mandatory quotas for a further 12 months.
The new quota system contained in Commission decision 1831/81 published on 1 July has a revised reference base which will greatly reduce the additional entitlement previously given to some Continental producers. Arrangements are needed between the producers to compensate for any disadvantage suffered by the British Steel Corporation as a result of reduced production during the reference period due to the strikes.
The key to the quotas and the calculation of them is an immensely complicated basis. The Eurofer discussions, to which the Government were not a party, involved long and difficult discussions. Misunderstanding about the effect of the proposals arose from time to time. None the less, arrangements have been made for the third quarter, but further discussions will be needed to cover subsequent periods.
After intensive producers' discussions, with Commission help, a satisfactory basis was found for a workable voluntary agreement covering the next two categories—heavy plates and heavy sections. In the remaining category, covering light sections comprising wire rod, reinforcing bars and merchant bars, the position was complicated by the more substantial share of


production in the hands of the smaller independent producers. No agreement was possible on reinforcing bars and merchant bars.
In accordance with the views expressed in the Council on 24 June, the Commission proposed in document 7847/81 dated 29 June extension of article 58 quotas for these products also, and the Council has given formal written assent. As in the case of hot rolled coil, I considered that it was necessary in the interests of market stability to avoid delay in giving United Kingdom consent and regretfully I felt that it would not have been desirable to enter a reserve pending parliamentary scrutiny.
The Commission's decision in 1832/81 was published on 4 July and maintains the provision for the issue of Commission guidelines for the special steels not covered by quota ceilings, an aspect to which the British Independent Steel Producers Association, with which we have maintained close contact, attaches particular importance. Such guidelines have been issued under the previous article 58 arrangements, including special provision for a reduction in production for export to the United Kingdom market.
In the case of wire rod, a limited measure of voluntary agreement was achieved and the Commission, supported by a number of member States, wished to see the effect on the market, which is to be monitored closely. It relates, however, only to the third quarter and most of the United Kingdom industry is only prepared to accept an arrangement that would offer a better coverage and tighter production restraint. We shall wish to see that further consideration is given to the state of the market and that the Commission should put forward appropriate proposals for further action.
The important short-term objective is to secure an increase in the price of steel in the Community market. The prices recently have been lower than in either the United States or Japan and below the costs of even the most efficient producers. In parallel with production restraint, the Community producers are raising their prices in the second half of the year by 10 to 15 per cent.
It is important that these increases are not undermined through price cutting by those seeking a temporary advantage. On the other hand, mandatory prices under article 61 of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty are difficult to fix at the right level and cumbersome to operate and enforce.
The Commission is, however, to support the market by enforcing more strictly the pricing rules under article 60 which require the publication of price lists, nondiscrimination between customers and alignment only in accordance with specified conditions. The aim is to eliminate the widespread unpublished discounting that has been taking place throughout the Community.
The Commission has, moreover, rightly considered that pricing transparency will be made more effective if distributors are required to publish price lists and refrain from hidden discounting. Article 63.3 of the Treaty empowers the Commission to make binding recommendations to member States to ensure that the pricing rules are observed by distributive undertakings. But the implementation by member States of such a recommendation, involving national subordinate legislation, will naturally

take some time. It is inevitable that some member States will take longer than others to introduce an effective system.
Document 7825/81 contains the Commission's proposal for a decision requiring the larger dealers to publish their prices and conditions of sale and to transmit them to the Commission. They would be liable to checks by Commission officials to ascertain whether unauthorised discounting of these price lists had taken place. I recognise that any extension of powers in the area of entry and inspection is a sensitive issue, but I am not aware of any difficulties experienced with other Commission inspections involving similar powers under the Treaty which are normally carried out with the consent of the firms concerned.
The extension of these pricing rules to distributors is supported not only by the United Kingdom steel producers but also by the stockholders. They recognise the need for adequate powers of inspection. They and the producers consider that the measures should include even the smaller distributors, although the Commission, which was concerned about the administrative burden, believes that the measure can be effective by covering the larger firms accounting for the bulk of the trade.
The Government have drawn the Commission's attention to the industry's concern and are supporting representations made to the Commission by the National Association of Steel Stockholders for a lowering of the limit.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the strong feeling that is entertained by the steel stockholders about the arbitrary figure that has been chosen as the cut-off point. I am sure that he did not mean to play down the extreme anxiety that they have been displaying on this score to many of my hon. Friends in recent representations.

Mr. Tebbit: I take my hon. Friend's point. Any cut-off is bound to be to some extent arbitrary. I do not play down the concern of the trade. That is why the Government have drawn the Commission's attention to the industry's concern and will be supporting the representations that were made to the Commission.
The limit to be placed on the size of undertakings to be covered by the measure was dealt with at about four o'clock in the morning after an extremely long and arduous session in the Council of Ministers. Agreement had been reached only with the greatest difficulty. I consider that we should not have argued at that stage over what was the precisely correct level at which to set the limit. All members of the Council of Ministers were inclined to accept the Commission's recommendation at that stage of a limit of 12,000 tonnes a year to enable an agreement to be made that night.

Mr. Michael Brown: When my hon. Friend referred to the document and the decision, I, too, had the distinct impression that there was considerable apparent agreement in the Commission. It appears that the reason for the agreement was an arduous debate that took place earlier. I have the impression that this measure may have slipped through in everyone's anxiety not to frustrate the earlier agreement. I, too, must emphasise that there is deep concern and anxiety on the


part of the National Association of Steel Stockholders about the cut-off. What form is my hon. Friend's support for its representations likely to take?

Mr. Tebbit: It is more a matter of the form that it is taking. I have told vice-president Davignon of our belief that the 12,000 tonne limit is too high for the British industry. It may be adequate for the industries of other countries that have a different structure. It is our belief—I have emphasised this to vice-president Davignon—that our limit should be lower even if the present limit is correct for other countries. It is my intent to persuade him that that is right and that we should reduce the limit.
I am not persuaded that the measures will be fatally flawed if we retain the present limit of 12,000 tonnes. I think that they would be fairer and more effective if we had a lower limit.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is not the danger in this problem that those who escape the limit will be able to escape the restrictions and undercut pricing and undermine the agreement generally?

Mr. Tebbit: One has to consider where the weight of the industry lies and to question from where steel could be obtained at prices that would enable undercutting to take place. I think it unlikely that our major steel producers will be willing to try to supply steel at excessively low prices to those stockholders in order to discount.

Dr. Cunningham: They could import.

Mr. Tebbit: Of course, they could import, but the same is true there. Excessive discounting would be unlikely, and there are measures within the Community to help deal with that. Moreover, imports from third countries outside the Community are almost all closely controlled in one form or another, mostly by voluntary restraint arrangements.
The arrangement, as I said, is not perfect. We should all agree about that. However, I do not believe that it is fatally flawed by what I frankly admit is an imperfection of this sort. We shall do our best to put it right.
As I said, article 63.3 of the Treaty gives the Commission a specific power to issue binding recommendations on this subject. This is, therefore, the appropriate way to proceed. However, the legal advisers to the Commission and the Council have advised that the urgency of dealing with the market situation to achieve the objectives of the Treaty justifies a temporary use of a decision under article 95.1, which covers cases not otherwise provided for in the Treaty. This decision will, therefore, operate only until 30 June 1982. The Commission has, in error, published the decision 1835/81 on 4 July, despite the reserve which I recorded pending completion of parliamentary procedures. However, in response to our protest, it recognised that this reserve is still in force.
At the same time, the Commission issued recommendation 1835/81, requiring member States to give effect nationally to a similar measure from 1 July 1982. An order under the European Communities Act 1972 will be introduced during the next Session to implement the recommendation.
I have talked so far about measures to improve the current market situation with the objective of raising prices sufficiently to enable really efficient undertakings to cover their costs. However, such market restraint measures,

which might be crudely called a cartel, can provide no secure long-term solution. That must depend on remedying the structural imbalance and closing the gap between capacity and demand in a way that leaves a modern and streamlined industry capable of operating viably and competitively in the sort of market environment that must be expected.
I and my European colleagues were in agreement that Government subsidies incompatible with the ECSC Treaty, which have encouraged the creation and retention of unviable capacity, should be progressively eliminated. It can be to the advantage of no one for Governments to be drawn into subsidisation to maintain capacity and production in excess of market requirements

Dr. Cunningham: Tell that to the Germans.

Mr. Tebbit: It is the Germans who have been in the lead in pressing for these measures to eliminate subsidy. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Germans are an the van of the subsidy game in the steel industry, I beg him to think again—either indirect or direct subsidies.

Mr. Allen McKay: Surely, the subsidy in transport costs, fuel costs and coking coal costs in Germany is not a direct subsidy but an indirect subsidy. That is what counts in the long run.

Mr. Tebbit: I understand that the subsidy on coking coal in Germany is one which reduces the price of German coking coal to that which is available on the open market in the world, and which they could otherwise import freely. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want British Steel to have access equally to best-quality coking coal at world prices.

Mr. Peter Hardy: In addition to the coking coal subsidies, is not the Minister aware that the price of electricity that is paid by the German steel industry is substantially lower than it is in Britain? In the constituency of my hon Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and mine there are a number of steelworks, and in each of those works—the steel is made by the electric arc furnace method—the electricity bill is £5 million a year more than in the French and German steelworks of comparable character.

Mr. Tebbit: To say that somebody can obtain something for a lower proce in one country than in another is not to prove that the commodity is subsidised. It could be that the German electricity industry is more efficient than ours. I do not say that it is, but I beg the hon. Gentleman not to rule out that possibility. I also beg him to take into account the probable scale of these matters and to share with me the guilt that we must all have of having had to subsidise the British Steel Corporation last year to the tune of £660 million of loss. That is not a minor subsidy. It cannot be washed away against a subsidy on coking coal and transport on railways.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend eloquently responded to that point. Is it the Government's view that British Steel should have access to coking coal at world market prices? Does he intend to ensure that it obtains that?

Mr. Tebbit: The questions of the supply of coal to the BSC and the prices that are charged for coal in Britain are more appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, to whom I hope that my hon. Friend will address his question.
The phasing out of aids and the elimination of excess and uncompetitive capacity can be done only on the basis of multilateral agreement if the burden of the necessary restructuring is to be fairly shared. It would be impossible for Britain to achieve a unilateral solution outside the Community.
The existing decision 257/80 covered only specific aids, did not provide adequate arrangements for the phasing out of aids incompatible with the Treaty, did not link them sufficiently with capacity reduction, and in any case was to expire at the end of this year. Document 7306/81 contains the Commission's draft of a new, stricter decision to rectify those problems. In the form eventually agreed ad referendum in the 24 June Council, the new decision will operate until the end of 1985 and no payment of aids contrary to the Treaty may take place after then, other than by way of interest rebates or payments to honour guarantees on loans disbursed previously. Only aids compatible with the Treaty will be possible after 1985. Emergency aids must not last longer than six months and may not be authorised after 31 December 1981. The Commission must be given prior notice of all proposed aids and no notification may be made later than 30 September 1982, excepting aid for unforeseen closures. Operating aids must be degressive, not last more than two years and not involve payments after 31 December 1984, other than in exceptional cases on which the Commission and member States had reached a consensus. Aid may be approved by the Commission, except for emergency aid and closure aid, only when it is linked to a restructuring programme that includes net capacity reduction.
The decision is of crucial importance in the concerted Community attempt to restore the steel industry to profitability and competitiveness. Although the timetable for the phasing out of aids in the decision is a tight one, it is consistent with the target set for the British Steel Corporation to achieve break-even in the year 1982–83. The linking of State aids and net capacity reduction is an essential feature of the measure, and one to which we attach particular importance since the effect of the substantial closures already made in the United Kingdom industry must not be undermined by failure to reduce capacity in other member States.
There is provision in the decision for the Commission, with the unanimous consent of the Council, to amend it if, in due course, circumstances such as changes in other Community policies affecting iron and steel make that necessary.
The decision is being taken under article 95.1 of the Treaty. I have entered a reserve pending completion of parliamentary procedure. In doing so I was conscious both of the importance of the subject and of the statement by my predecessor to the House in October 1979 that any extension of the previous decision beyond December 1981 would require a Treaty amendment.

Mr. Stan Crowther: I am a little puzzled by precisely what the reserve means. Bearing in mind that the Government are asking the House only to take note of the documents and to welcome the agreement, does it mean that, if the House declined to take note and to welcome the agreement, the agreement would cease to have effect? Is that what the reserve means?

Mr. Tebbit: It would require more than a failure to take note, because a take-note debate is rather peculiar, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Were the Opposition or the Government to move a more substantive motion, and were it to be carried, it would mean that the agreement which I gave in the Council would not have been endorsed by Parliament.

Mr. Stanley Orme: rose—

Mr. Tebbit: I shall give an explanation to the right hon. Gentleman before he gets it wrong. None of the decisions on which I laid a parliamentary reserve have gone ahead. The ones on which I did not lay a parliamentary reserve are going ahead. For the others, preparations are being made and things are happening, but that could not continue if we decided that we could not go through with it.

Mr. Orme: Taking into account what the hon. Gentleman has said, does it mean that, where we are taking note and where he has given a reserve, he must bring forward substantive legislation to deal with that?

Mr. Tebbit: I have already explained the matter. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press the point too far, because it could be considerably to our disadvantage in a number of discussions in the Community. If he were to go back and ask his right hon. and hon. Friends, who used precisely the same procedures, whether they thought that that was the right way to go about it, I believe that he would find that they were in agreement with the Government about the way in which we handle these matters now. I believe that they would also suggest that it would not be best if we pressed the point too far in this area as it may leave us with less of a tactical advantage at times in the Community than we have now.
As I was saying, the new decision is being taken under article 95.1 of the Treaty. I have entered a reserve pending completion of these procedures. It is true that the decision, like its predecessor, gives the Commission power to approve aids granted by States that are clearly contrary to article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty. But, given that the new decision is of a temporary nature providing for the phasing out and ending of all aid that is contrary to the Treaty and that it is in pursuit of a Community objective—the competitive viability of the steel industry—consistent with article 2 of the Treaty, we have judged it inappropriate to stand out alone for the lengthier process of Treaty amendment which could only have delayed a measure that is urgently needed.
The reduction of capacity and employment, while a necessary part in restoring the health of the steel industry, is a painful process but one which can also benefit from Community measures to alleviate the social problems involved and encourage the provision of alternative employment.
I remind the House that under article 56 of the ECSC Treaty the Community already acts in two directions. It provides readaptation grants covering about half the cost of member Government schemes for providing income support for redundant ECSC steel workers. Under the Iron and Steel Employees Readaptation Benefit Scheme—ISERBS—the United Kingdom has become a major beneficiary of such Community contributions, to the tune of over £80 million to date.
Secondly, the Community provides loans towards the cost of projects providing alternative employment to redundant steel workers, in many cases with the benefit of interest rebates financed from the ECSC budget. Again, the United Kingdom is a major beneficiary; projects in the United Kingdom accounted for nearly half—430 million ECUs—of the reconvresion loans, and approaching twofifths-35 million ECUs—of the interest rebates approved between 1975 and 1980.
As I explained to the House on 15 January last, the Government have strongly supported Commission proposals that in addition there should be a Community contribution towards expenditure by member States in financing early retirement, including severance payments, and short-time working, with the proviso that the latter should be linked to restructuring, which is necessary to bring capacity into line with demand. I am glad to report that the Council has finally agreed to Commission proposals that 112 million units of account in 1981 and 100 million units of account for the years 1982–84 should be made available for such aid.
The member States agreed that they would make special contributions to the ECSC budget of 50 million units of account as an initial tranche towards the financing of this aid, using a similar key to that used in earlier member State contributions to finance the ECSC budget deficits which arose from the heavy increase in readaptation grants and interest subsidies on reconversion loans. The United Kingdom share was a little under 17½ per cent. There is no reason to suppose that the United Kingdom would not again receive a net financial benefit since we have already submitted applications totalling 178 million units of account—or nearly £100 million. The United Kingdom's approval was, of course, given subject to completion of parliamentary procedures, and next Session an order under section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972, which will have the effect of enabling the United Kingdom share to be paid, will be submitted for the approval of Parliament.
The financing of the balance of the cost of the measure will be subject to further discussions in the Community.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that in reporting these concessions tomorrow's Financial Times, a copy of which has just arrived, also contains a report that the Commission has withheld approval of £560 million of the Government's steel recovery plan? In view of what my hon. Friend said a few minutes ago, does that mean that when the Commission finally agrees the £560 million, it could make it a condition that capacity be reduced to below 14·4 million tonnes?

Mr. Tebbit: I am not unduly perturbed at the fact that at present we have not received final clearance from the Commission for the initial stages of the BSC recovery plan. Under the Treaty provision, it would be possible for the Commission to refuse consent to the funding of the recovery plan. However, I believe that the plan is sound and that it will gain the agreement of the Commission. I hope that we will be able to announce some progress before too long.

Mr. Taylor: I apologise for interrupting again, but this is important. In view of what my hon. Friend said a few minutes ago about the powers at present being considered to link aid with demands for a reduction in capacity, and in view of the Commission's refusal of the £560 million,

does that mean that when it is finally approved the Commission could demand a reduction in our capacity below 14·4 million tonnes?

Mr. Tebbit: I know nothing about a refusal by the Commission.

Mr. Taylor: That is what the Financial Times said.

Mr. Tebbit: I am not responsible for what appears in the Financial Times. I have not yet received the Commission's consent, but l have received no notice of its refusal. As my hon. Friend knows, under article 4 of the Treaty, it is forbidden to conduct these programmes of subsidisation. The power exists, and has existed, but it has not been capable of being used in the past because, in my view, the Treaty has been abused. We now have agreement within the Community on the matters to be taken into account by the Commission in considering whether, as a temporary derogation from the Treaty, these forms of State subsidisation should be allowed. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Taylor: Does it mean that the Commission could say later "You will have £560 million only if you reduce capacity below 14·4 million tonnes"?

Mr. Tebbit: The Commission could say "No money at all unless you eliminate the whole of your steel industry." That could be said to any member of the Community. What my hon. Friend must ask himself is not what is theoretically possible if members of the Commission take leave of their senses but what is reasonably likely.
I need hardly say that the Government very much welcome the agreement now reached in the Council on the new measure. I refer to the social funding. The action demonstrates that the Community is rightly concerned about the social implications of steel closures, and the measure should be seen as a necessary part of the total package. I should stress that it will in no way supersede or diminish the existing aid available under article 56 of the ECSC Treaty.
Document 7305/81 indicates that the Commission intends in addition to concentrate more closely on measures designed to help generate new employment, in particular in areas where there has been a substantial loss of steel jobs. First, the Commission is examining ways of expanding its activity under article 56, with the aim of increasing the volume of reconversion loans and interest rebates for projects providing employment in areas of coal and steel decline. It is also considering other possible ways of assisting job creation, both specifically under ECSC auspices and in the longer run more generally as part of the social fund's regular activities. We await with interest the new proposals from the Commission to this end and should, of course, give them careful consideration.
The package of steel measures as agreed as a result of the Council meetings in Luxembourg on 4 and 24 June is a substantial achievement, which illustrates how member States of the Community are able to work together to find common solutions to common problems. The Community demonstrated its ability to reconcile the different interests of member States and reach an agreement which should be of lasting benefit to the European industry. In an international market such as steel, there could he no effective unilateral solution. On our own, without the Community, we could not have acted in the same way. But


as members of the Community we were able to take advantage of its economic strength to produce an outcome of mutual benefit to all member States. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
Let me be more correct. We could reach a unilateral agreement to impose these measures on ourselves, but we could not force, persuade or influence other people's steel industries to undergo the same sort of treatment. We should be left isolated in these matters.
I am almost at the end of my remarks. I said at the beginning that I was sorry that I should have to speak for longer that I wished, because these are complex matters.
At this stage I must say something about the Opposition amendment—briefly, because that is all that it deserves. I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) are serious in putting it on the Order Paper. I believe that they are gently pulling our legs. I only hope that they are not deluding themselves.
One cannot simply say on the night of 28–29 July that there shall never be any further reductions in the capacity of the United Kingdom steel industry. It would be a very silly thing to say, and I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Gentleman is that silly. They know perfectly well that if there is a further fall in demand for steel it may one day be necessary to make further reductions in capacity. What else would they do—have their own private steel mountain? It is absurd to put such a proposition on the Order Paper.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has been very generous. Is he aware that other countries in Europe, such as Italy and Spain, have for years been steadily increasing capacity and still are, and are sending their steel to our market? The Minister talks as though there will be no market for British steel in this country in the next few years.

Mr. Tebbit: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the measures that we have agreed within the Community apply not only to the British industry but to the Italian, German, French and Belgian industries—

Mr. Crowther: That is not true. They do not apply to Italy.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman must not become over-excited. I said that the measures that we have agreed apply across the Community. Every Community State will have to get the agreement of the Commission in order to finance its steel industry. It is simply no good the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) shaking his head.
I am confident that the House will agree that the Community measures on production quotas for certain steel products, on the phasing out of aids to the steel industry coupled with the necessary restructuring and on the more stringent application of the pricing rules and their extension to merchants are in the best interests of the steel industry and, indeed, of the economy at large.

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move, to leave out from "distributors" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
but declines to accept further reductions in steel manufacturing capacity in the United Kingdom.

I had considerable sympathy with a great deal of what the Minister said until his throwaway remarks about the amendment. He has presented for the agreement of the House a package of measures containing certain terms and conditions for which he has no doubt worked very hard in the EEC. All that we are attempting to do from the Opposition Benches—we do not apologise for doing so—is to make it a condition of accepting those measures, some of which will be beneficial to us and some of which will not, that there should be no further rundown in our steel industry until some of our EEC partners have put their own houses in order.
That is the purpose of our amendment. It is legitimate and, in view of the intervention by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), apposite. It is most important to the British Steel Corporation and to the workers in the industry. I therefore regret the Minister's knockabout remarks about the amendment. It is, I suppose, too much to expect the Government to accept it, but it is worthy of a great deal more serious consideration than he gave it, in view of what is contained in the documents that the Minister is presenting to the House.

Mr. Tebbit: We should have had a more interesting debate if the hon. Gentleman had tabled the amendment that he has just described. I have every sympathy with the spirit of the amendment, and I certainly have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comment that we should not cut back our steel industry further under compulsion from the Commission until we have seen evidence of the same sort of thing happening in the industries of other States.

Dr. Cunningham: In that case, if the Minister would like to submit a manuscript amendment that framed our amendment in his terms, I am sure that we could agree on it. But I think that he is wriggling a little and is trying to engage in a discussion about words. He knows full well the purpose and intent of our amendment. I am pleased that he has had the grace to put on record his agreement with the spirit of the amendment, if not its wording. Of course, this is a highly serious matter for the Opposition, and I do not apologise for tabling our amendment.
It must come as a great surprise to many Conservative Members to find the Minister of State and the Secretary of State, whom I am pleased to see here, engaging in the kind of organisation of the steel industry that is now taking place in Europe. It is a mark of just how far it is possible for some people to move when faced with the realities and necessities of the circumstances.
Throughout the Minister of State's long speech—I make no complaint about the length, as he is right to say that these are complicated matters and he made a good job of explaining the details of them to the House—we heard nothing about market forces or free enterprise. We heard, instead, about the necessity to organise prices, to organise production quotas and to organise and control the way in which the Governments assist or do not assist industries, all of which is welcome in principle, if not in detail, to the Opposition. That speech, with the labyrinth of detailed scrutiny and control that is needed in the steel industry, is indicative of the complexity of the problem that the European steel industries face and the parlous state of the steel market in Europe. I see the Secretary of State nodding in agreement. It must be anathema to him to embark upon this course of action.
Even though we welcome that small conversion—I am not so optimistic as to think that it will be allowed to spread—we have some reservations about what has been agreed. In saying that, I hope that the Minister of State will accept that it is regrettable that some matters were agreed before being discussed in the House. I say that in defence not just of the Opposition but of the House generally.
Clearly, the existing arrangements, which were a mixture of compulsory and voluntary quotas, reflected the failure of producers in the areas subject to them to reach voluntary agreements. The basis of the original approach was that Eurofer had failed to reach any agreement which could be made to stick. Even when agreements had been reached, there was a great deal of what one might call, to put it politely, failure to comply with the agreements. This country in particular has paid a heavy price for the failures of those agreements. I include in that the whole of the British steel industry, both public and private.
It is perhaps opportune that we are discussing this matter at this time. As the hon. Member for Southend, East said, at about this time we should be hearing the Government's view of the MacGregor plan and its working or otherwise. We know, however, that that consideration has been put back. One reason for that is probably the extended consideration of it within the EEC.
Given that we have gone much further than many of our competitors, the House is entitled to say that it ill becomes the Commission to spend so much time looking as though it is intent upon holding up the reorganisation and financial reconstruction of our industry when it apparently spent so little time and effort dealing with some of the glaring anomalies and weaknessess, if not downright denials of what is supposed to be happening in other countries' steel industries. I hope that the Minister of State will make that point forcefully to the Commission when he next meets its members. If he does, he will certainly have the support of the Opposition.
Towards the end of the six-month life of what is called Eurofer I voluntary agreements were sought, but it was obvious that some producers, notably the West Germans, were not inclined to reach any agreement. Given the disastrous effects of what took place last year on the stability of the market and on pricing, we strongly support the reintroduction of a compulsory system and the use of all the powers at the Commission's command to see that any agreement is made to stick and to work fairly throughout the Community.
It is no secret that price cutting was taking place on a cut-throat, suicidal level, and nowhere was it having a more devastating effect than in areas such as special steels. My colleagues from Rotherham and Sheffield will make that argument for their constituencies much better than I can.
It was clear that we had to have an agreement if our industries, many of which are, as the Minister said, modern and efficient, were to have any chance of surviving and covering their costs, even when working efficiently, effectively and competitively. We welcome the agreement on pricing and all that it entails.
The situation on quotas is a little different. Document 7305/81 includes some laudable aims, such as
to maintain the unity of the European steel industry and thus, Community solidarity"—
there is not much sign of a free market there—

to create the right economic climate for the restructuring of this industry … to re-establish a more balanced relationship between supply and demand … to give producers time to return to voluntary arrangements.
The Minister of State said that that might be crudely described as a cartel. I shall not bother to argue whether it is crude or sophisticated, but a rose by any other name. It is undoubtedly an agreement to manage the steel market.
I understand that the BSC is satisfied that it will get a fair deal, but that satisfaction is based on quotas that will operate only from the third quarter. The corporation was unhappy about the original proposed quotas, which would have left it in the ridiculous position of perhaps having to import steel to keep some of its downstream activities going. That is a measure of the unacceptability of some aspects of the original proposals.
A more permanent agreement remains to be reached. The Minister of State nods, so our understanding of the situation is correct. If the Government and the BSC are unable to reach such an agreement, the BSC will presumably have to decide whether unilaterally to withdraw and go its own way or to come to an alternative arrangement. It is a serious problem, which remains to be resolved. The time scale for the resolution of that problem is not long, as the Minister is only too well aware. These things take a great deal of time to hammer out, but it will be particularly important for the BSC to resolve that problem.
I come now to the document on State aids. Here m e have the strongest reservations of all about what is being proposed. That is the principal reason for our amendment. As we understand the position, all forms of aid that have been used in the past by successive British Governments to assist the steel industry will be covered by the agreement. I do not think that any aids, including regional policy assistance, will be without this agreement. That in itself is remarkable, in that the British steel industry alone., of all our industries, will be denied regional policy assistance. We find that strange, to say the least, and it will be unacceptable to a future Labour Administration. We shall not want to have that position obtaining for any length of time, if at all.
The draft decision includes an article establishing general rules to apply to all aids, in addition to the rules for each type of aid. They include provisions specifying that, in order to qualify for aids, undertakings or groups of undertakings must be engaged in industrial and, where necessary, financial restructuring, and the restructuring plan must provide for a reduction in capacity.
I come back to the question that was put to the Minister of State. We want to know whether it is likely that before the Commission gives its blessing to the rest of the aid to the BSC further reductions in capacity will be demanded. We already know from leaks from Brussels that there is some difference of opinion between the corporation and the Commission over what overall capacity figure will obtain. Is it 14·4 million tonnes or 13·4 million tonnes? There is a difference of 1 million tonnes, at least according to press reports, and I accept that press reports are not always as accurate as we would like. Certainly there has been a long delay and the importance of that to us cannot be too heavily stressed, so again we need to have that clarified.
Several of my hon. Friends have made the point that aids in other countries will not be covered. The Scrutiny Committee paid some attention to this. The criteria


proposed by the Commission for its examination of applications for aids are summarised in the Department of Industry's explanatory memorandum, and it then refers to them, but it does not refer to aids to transport, to energy costs or to coking coals, so we seem to have a position in which it will be possible for countries to take that route of support. I accept that it may be support one stage removed, in that they are supporting the coal industry which then provides coal. It mines coke and gives it to the steel industry, but it is an aid to the industry.
We do not want to have the situation that has been put to the Minister tonight whereby we run down our coal industry by importing coking coal while at the same time we acquiesce in the decision that is allowing one of our European partners to keep its coal industry going, particularly when all this will be assessed against a background of what has taken place in the European steel industries since 1975.
The figures that I have been given and the figures that I obtained from the BSC in respect of what has happened since 1974–75 are as follows: in the Federal Republic of Germany total crude steel capacity has increased by 13 per cent. In France it has decreased by 2·1 per cent. In Italy it has increased by 30·9 per cent. and in Belgium it has increased by 4·9 per cent. In Luxembourg it has decreased by 5·1 per cent. and in the Netherlands it has increased by 42·4 per cent. In that time British Steel's capacity decreased by 15·1 per cent.

Mr. Tebbit: To be fair, will the hon. Gentleman give the United Kingdom figure?

Dr. Cunningham: I assure the Government that I am bending over backwards to be fair to them. If there is concern about the level of aggression, I assure the Government that I can turn up the wick a few notches.
The United Kingdom figure is down by 8·6 per cent. By a significant amount, that is still the largest decline in Europe as a whole. If we are to be parties to any agreement that links aid to industry with restructuring—whether financial or physical restructuring and reorganisation of the industry—we wish to be sure that everyone else will play the game according to the rules. We wish to ensure that we shall not be further disadvantaged, as we have been in the past, when rules are blatantly ignored, subverted and manoeuvred round by some of our competitors.

Mr. Hooley: That is not the whole of the story. Spanish steel capacity has been increasing merrily for several years. Spain is at present outside the EEC, but it is shortly to join it. In addition, the world market includes such countries as Korea and Brazil.

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right. If Spain, with its steel capacity, joins the EEC we shall have further problems to contend with. I hope that that will be kept to the fore in any discussions or negotiations on enlarging the Community.
Both sides of the House at least agree that we now have a great amount of modern, up-to-date capacity, which should be able to compete with most—if not all—of the steel industries in Western Europe, if not in the world. It was the intention of both Governments that that should be so. It would be economic, industrial nonsense for us to accept further steel closures in the face of that and in the

face of what we know about existing capacity in some of our so-called partner countries. It is difficult to accept that some of them are partners when one considers what has been going on throughout the recent history of the steel industry.
It is unacceptable and unthinkable that we should have further steel closures in the short or medium term. The Minister may say that none of us can see far ahead. However, the agreement on aids is to cover the period from now until 1985. On that basis, our amendment is reasonable, because we are talking about steel-making capacity.
I want to refer briefly to the continuing need for us to be able to intervene in our industries, if the Government think fit. There has been some press comment on the Warner report on the conditions in the special steels industry. We know that the industry is in a critical state because of imports, excess capacity and, in some cases, failure to adopt new processes. I understand that that report calls for action in a number of areas by Her Majesty's Government, among others, and the industry. It recommends that not only should the Government embark on the creation of a working party to work out the future of the industry but that they should give financial support for a number of items, including the reorganisation of the industry, support for research and development and support for the production of high-speed steel from powder metallurgy techniques. Shall we be given an early response to that series of recommendations? Is not that called-for report likely to be overtaken by the EEC agreement just as we are apparently in danger of seeing some part, if not all, of the MacGregor plan being overtaken by the discussions in the EEC?
Those are crucial questions and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to suggest when we shall have a final decision on MacGregor and a Government response to what is contained in the report of Sir Frederick Warner.
We have seen a massive, indeed catastrophic, run-down of our industry. The present difficult circumstances are being aggravated by lack of demand, as the Minister of State said. It is likely that if the Government's policies continue demand will further decline. The Government could take a number of measures that would aid the steel industry, such as going ahead with the gas-gathering pipeline in the North Sea and extending the rail electrification programme or doing something about the catastrophic slump in the building and construction industries. Even steel bath manufacturers in Britain have been moved to write to the Prime Minister to protest about massive imports of steel baths. That surely is indicative of how far down we have gone in steel utilisation in the country that was the birthplace of steel manufacture.
Government policy has contributed in a number of ways to an ever slimmer steel industry, developing a sort of industrial anorexia nervosa—ever slimmer, slimmer for its own sake, slimmer to the point where the industry will become so slim that, like the victims of that disease, it will not be able to recover.
That is why the amendment should be accepted by the Government and should be a condition of acceptance of the EEC documents.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: There are a few reasons why we should be less enthusiastic than the Opposition about the regulations. There is a great deal of


attraction in the proposals for anyone who supports a Socialist view. The crucial aspect which should worry us is that the proposals have as much relationship to free enterprise and market forces as a collective farm. By accepting the measures, or even noting them with approval, we accept, not temporarily but as part of a long-term plan initially until 1985, a system based on organising and fixing production prices and costs, which will be supervised by bureaucratic control. The Minister envisaged that EEC police would go round the countries to ensure that the rules are kept.
Can the Minister and others who believe in Conservatism and free enterprise honestly regard the proposal as acceptable? Surely it is based on a Socialism even stronger than that set out in George Brown's national plan. I am happy that the Secretary of State for Industry has not introduced the proposals, because we are being asked to organise our steel industry and Europe's steel on the basis of dull and unresponsive Socialism. It is a Socialist plan for organised and controlled prices.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Does a free-for-all in a recession when there is a buyer's market justify making the mistake that we made in the 1930s, which also nearly killed Sheffield's special steel industry?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend thinks that we are bottoming out and that things will get better. It is a mistake to reconcile ourselves to such a plan, not only until 1985 but beyond. My hon. Friend must recognise that there is more than one way of taking special measures on a national basis to protect an industry. I accept that in a recession and crisis the nation must take action. But it is difficult to take action on a Euroscale with the knowledge that every time that we have done anything like it we have been proved to be mugs. We have come off worst, others have broken the rules and we have lost more jobs. It is right that a nation should respond to a crisis with crisis measures, but the proposal is more permanent. It will do great and continuing damage, not only to steel but to the British economy as a whole.
Is it right to agree to proposals designed to get rid of artificial aids across Europe when we have the special problem of coal which is an important, substantial cost to the United Kingdom? I accept that it might be possible to get rid of the artificial subsidisation of coal if there are enough Euro police and a change in the attitude of Continentals, particularly the French and the Italians.
However, that does not deal with the problem of the basic cost for each country. The Government have decided, understandably, that we should continue to pay British miners to go down pits which are totally uneconomic, to produce coal which nobody wants, at-prices which nobody can afford. As a result, our coal and coke prices are Likely to be in excess of prices across the water on the Continent. If I am right and the basic cost of producing coking coal in the United Kingdom is greater than in Germany, France and Italy—[Hon. Members: "No."] Hon. Members might say "No", but there is evidence of that in the straight cost of production.

Mr. Hardy: A great deal of coking coal is produced in my constituency in the South Yorkshire area of the National Coal Board. The current cost of producing the coal is £37 a tonne. The cost of producing the coal from Ruhr Kohle AG mines in West Germany, the only other significant producer of coking coal in Europe, is about £47

a tonne. That is not the latest figure whereas the figure I have given for South Yorkshire is as recent as early this week. The hon. Gentleman is miles from reality.

Mr. Taylor: I accept the figures that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I have heard them myself from the National Coal Board and my friends in British Steel. Within the rules, regulations and restrictions applied, I suggest that the price to be paid by British Steel for its coal and coking coal over the next five years will exceed the price being paid by European steel producers. This should cause hon. Members serious concern when one considers that our steel will become less competitive.
The Government should also bear in mind that this country, once again, as so often in the past, could turn out to be the mugs—

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am puzzled by my hon. Friend's remarks. At one stage, he says that it is monstrous that there should be regulations and what amounts to European Socialism. The next moment, he argues that if there are to be rules, we shall be proved to be the mugs who obey them. Does my hon. Friend want rules that work properly and ensure an orderly treatment of the European coal and steel industry? Or does he want a free-for-all? He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Taylor: I happen not to like Socialism. I do not think that it is good for growth, for workers or for industry. If, however, one has to adopt Socialist plans, I would prefer to see everyone taking part, obeying the same rules and following the same practices. There is every indication already that Britain might be getting an unfair deal. This will appear in today's newspapers. The European Commission yesterday decided to withhold approval of £560 million of the £700 million rescue fund for which the Government sought approval because it remains uncertain about some of the central elements in the BSC survival plan.
The Commission's officials are worried that British Steel's liquid steel-making capacity, although substantially slimmed to 14·4 million tonnes, may still be too large to give reasonable market expectations, taking into account the over-capacity in Europe. I understand that our production capacity has, since 1979, been reduced from 21·5 million tonnes. to 14·4 million tonnes. That is a substantial reduction designed to make our industry fitter, leaner and more competitive. I am worried that the Commission, by withholding the £560 million, may consider that the 14·4 million tonnes should be further reduced. I wonder what measures the Government can take to ensure that the same level of reduction will be seen in the productive capacity of other European nations. How urgent is the need for the £560 million? This will have a considerable bearing on the future of the industry.

Mr. Tebbit: The further £190 million tranche which has been cleared by the European Commission will last the corporation well into October and towards the latter part of the year. My hon. Friend should take into account the fact that the Commission may have noted Mr. MacGregor's description of the survival plan as being very optimistic and may, therefore, be examining it quite closely. My hon. Friend had the advantage of a copy of tomorrow morning's Financial Times, which told him not only about the £190 million clearance but that the whole


of the British Leyland financing had been cleared. That demonstrates that the Commission takes a sensible view of sensible plans.

Mr. Taylor: I am glad to note that the Secretary of State is delighted at the extra cash that is coming to British Leyland. I was sorry that my right hon. Friend was not in the Chamber when I said that the plan has as much relevance to free enterprise and market forces as a collective farm. I know that that is something about which my right hon. Friend will not be happy.
My hon. Friend has said that the Commission has given us £190 million, which will cover aid until October. We are going into recess on Friday and we shall return to this place on 19 October. It is important that my hon. Friend tells the House, bearing in mind that the Commission's money will last only until we return to the House, when he thinks that extra cash will be needed, and, more importantly, whether there will be pressure in the interim, as was indicated in the reports from Brussels, further to reduce the £14·4 million tonnes.
As there have been no comparable reductions in European capacity, it would help if some indications were given of the level at which the Government think that they have a duty to preserve a steel industry against the background of the limited market forces that will operate until 1985. I hope that there is some level at which the Government think that it is worth while protecting or defending the steel industry.
The Government were elected to try to inject more private enterprise into British industry, to give more scope for entrepreneurs, to give more scope to those who wanted to reduce costs and to improve production by introducing free enterprise. There have been some recent splendid endeavours in that direction. There has been an injection of private enterprise into British Aerospace. We are told that that will be splendid. There has been some slippage in a different relationship with ICL and other organisations. It will be difficult for free enterprise to get going so long as the basic industries that make up so much of the costs of the free enterprise system are controlled by the State. Indeed, it appears that they are to be more permanently and rigidly controlled by the State under this and other plans.
When will it be possible for basic industries such as steel and car manufacture to have the injection of a little more competition? Are we to have only a little more free enterprise and little more competition on the peripheries of the economy? By setting up this appalling structure of controlled production, bureaucratic inspection, controlled prices, controlled production levels and controlled costs we are establishing something that seems as if it will be pretty permanent. It seems that we shall be organising our basic industries like collective farms for a long time to come.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The speech of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) justified the Scrutiny Committee's decision that there would be a substantial debate. I did not agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman said, but he advanced a legitimate argument. His description of what has happened to British industry as "slippage" was hardly appropriate. I traveled

between Sheffield and Rotherham recently and "slippage" is hardly the word to describe the wasteland that now exists. There is notice board after notice board offering substantial areas of industrial hereditaments for someone to purchase. There is little sign that anyone will purchase them. Such is the effect on what was an important wealth-creating area not so long ago.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: When I talked about slippage, it was in connection with the advance of free enterprise. I said that we had had a step forward with British Aerospace and a slight slippage in the advance of free enterprise in the case of ICL.

Mr. Hardy: There has been much slippage in both public and private enterprise in many parts of Britain. However, I shall not pursue the matter, because I want to refer to what the Minister said.
In his quiet and restrained way, the Minister spoke with a real affection for or approval of the elimination of capacity. I believe that the level of capacity has already fallen very low, and it should not fall any further. Over the past few years, Britain has become the dumping ground of everyone else's steel industry. I can quote case after case in South Yorkshire where other people's steel has been sold at prices less than the cost of production in this country and in theirs. The Labour Government took a long time to put quotas on Spanish steel. This Government appear to be reluctant to take any protective action. I know that steel produced in the Community, Austria, Spain, Sweden and many other countries as well as Brazil, Korea and Japan has been sold in Britian at less than it costs them to produce. Our steel industry has had to sit back and take it on the chin because of the philosophical embrace of the free market by this Government, who maintain the most open market in the world. It is no good the Minister shaking his head.
The Minister should be much more protective. I am reluctant to quote statistics, because it is hardly appropriate to do so at this time of night, but the Minister used the word "guilt" about excess capacity. I suggest that the House should be considering guilt of a deeper and more historic nature. The Minister should tell the Commission that it should be looking not at the last few months of steel demand but at the whole 30 years of post-war industrial development—not half that number of months. It should consider the way in which the steel industry in Britain and other countries has developed.
In 1950, the United Kingdom had 16½ million tonnes of steel capacity—that is much more than if the Community had had its way. West Germany had 12·1 million tonnes and Japan 4·8 million tonnes. We had one-twelfth of world steel tonnage.
By 1960, we had increased our capacity to 24·6 million tonnes. West Germany had increased its capacity to near our level, 22·1 million tonnes. The Japanese had passed us, to 34·1 million tonnes. At that point, Japan had increased its capacity to one-tenth of the world's total steel production. We had slipped to one-fourteenth. West Germany had increased its production by the amount that was required to increase its share of the world market over that decade.
In 1970, we had gone up to 28·3 million tonnes and West Germany to 45 million tonnes. Japan's record was unique and astonishing—it had increased to 93 million tonnes, one-eighth of the world total of 596 million tonnes.
By the end of the 1970s, the United Kingdom had slipped back to 20·3 million tonnes. West Germany had maintained 42 million tonnes, and the Japanese were 112 million tonnes. So by 1978–79 Japan had one-sixth of the total world steel production, and we had dropped to one-eighteenth. Germany was maintaining the same share that it had had throughout the previous 25 years. Now we are slipping back to occupy a position in which we shall produce less than 2 per cent. of the world's steel—this country, which, in large measure, is the home of steel technology.

Mr. John H. Osborn: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that during that time the dagger of nationalisation was hanging over the steel industry. It was nationalised in 1967. The nationalised steel industry had to wait three years before funds came in. By then, we had missed the bus. I accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he should bear in mind that he has some responsibility for the tragedy that hit the British steel industry.

Mr. Hardy: I regard myself as bearing the same responsibility as someone who was closely connected with the private sector of British steel and failed to invest, regardless of the party political excuses that were later invented. I do not want to involve myself, at this time of night, in a party political argument. I was talking about guilt, no matter what its origin. There is a guilt that is more serious and deep-rooted than that to which the Minister referred. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) should not adopt such a superficial view. I was about to explain why our share in steel had fallen and why, if Government policies are to have any effect, there will have to be a rapid change.
One reason is what happened in the car industry. In 1950 Britain produced 500,000 motor cars a year. The Japanese produced 1,594. Germany produced less than half the number produced by Britain. By 1965 Japan was producing 696,000 cars and Germany had increased its production to the point where it was producing 1 million more cars per year than Britain. By 1978 we were producing 500,000 cars less than we were in 1965, while the Germans were producing 1½ million more cars per year, and the Japanese had increased their production. in less than 13 years, by 5 million cars per year. That is an awful lot of steel.
My point is that if the Government are using public money to back British Leyland, if they are encouraging Sir Michael Edwardes or anyone else involved to ensure that that important sector of British industry survives, there will have to be a substantial steel industry to provide the steel for the cars. The steelworks in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) have some work because of the success of the Metro. If British Leyland or other industrial enterprises in Britain survive, there will be other work for the steelworks.
The fact remains that we failed to invest, whatever the cause. Whatever the hon. Member for Hallam may say, I remember that throughout the 1950s and 1960s public and private sector investment in the steel industry was about $100 million per year. In Japan it was five times that figure and in Germany four or five times that figure. I recall that during my first Parliament in the early 1970s there was a debate about whether we should increase our investment in steel. The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir

A. Meyer) may recall that. We increased our investment to $800 million or $900 million a year, of which some Conservative Members were critical. Plenty of people in Britain said that that increase was regrettable and wrong. But, while they were criticising that level of investment, the Japanese were not making a fuss. They continued to invest at five times our level . They recognised that if they were to have a major level of industrial activity they would have to have a substantial steel industry.
The Government should make it absolutely clear that there is a point beyond which the British steel industry will not be allowed to decline. There is a point beyond which we should not allow industrial dereliction to develop in Britain. We invested a fairly substantial amount for a short period in the 1970s. If we had been investing at that rate in the 1950s and 1960s, South Yorkshire would not have become a wasteland.
The Minister should put to the Commission that Britain must remain an industrial country. We cannot have a situation in which our industrial base is destroyed. I am not suggesting that there is any ground for us urgently to believe that there can be a major bulk steel contribution from the British industry. I know that the Minister does not like it, but I hope that he will listen to my point. I am not suggesting that anyone in the House can believe that Britain can make a substantial contribution to world bulk steel making, but our special steels industry can compete with anything in the world.
The Minister did not seem to believe me a few weeks ago when I told him that in the works in my constituency we were accustomed to breaking world records before the present recession. We are capable tomorrow of breaking world records again. The kit in the Rotherham area is competitive with anything in the world. If the Minister has no knowledge of that, I suggest that he sees it for himself, because the Secretary of State is aware of that fact. That capacity, which in large measure was a result of the investment of the 1970s, should be allowed to succeed and to operate.
The Minister should bear in mind that it is only relatively recently that the special steels industry of the South Yorkshire area has become unprofitable. For the greater part of the post-war period, that has been a money spinner. It could rapidly become a money spinner again, well in advance of the date when the Minister expects the British Steel Corporation to be out of the wood.
Surely this is a reasonable request for any hon. Member to make. All I am asking is that the Minister does his best to ensure that that which can win in British industry is allowed to be victorious. Rather than that, when I put that point to him a few weeks ago, the Minister suggested that the workers in that industry needed to have their present experience to teach them a lesson. If the Minister looks back to Question Time a few weeks ago, he will see that that is a justified impression. The Minister would not accept then that the workers in our area in Rotherham and Rother Valley accepted the need for change and that thousands of them voluntarily went down the road so that the industry should succeed. It now has a character of potential enormous success. It cannot be tolerated that European commissioners will expect the hon. Gentleman and Mr. MacGregor to engage in further cutbacks of capacity when we will be left with half the capacity of 10 years ago. Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy and Belgium will be left in greater strength than 10 years ago.

Sir Anthony Meyer: rose—

Mr. Hardy: I shall give way in a moment.
It is all very well for the Minister to quote the number of European units of account which are available for redeployment or re-adaptation. The fact is that in South Yorkshire today there are about 80,000 people on the dole. As I said at Question Time, there are 77 jobs in the careers offices in the whole county. That situation justifies my hon. Friends and me from the South Yorkshire area telling the Government that enough is enough. Industrial dereliction has gone far enough. That plant and equipment, whether it be in public or private hands, which could be profitable, and rapidly extremely successful, must be allowed to develop that success.
It is all very well the Minister saying that that applies to Italy, but he knows—if he does not, he should—that Italy has been allowed a sufficient number of exemptions over a sufficiently long time to have met its needs.

Mr. Crowther: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that in connection with Italy, when the Select Committee on Industry and Trade met the Commission in Brussels recently, we were specifically told by Commissioner Davignon that Italy was excluded from the capacity reduction provisions.

Mr. Hardy: That confirms my view. My hon. Friend makes a serious point. The Minister may have unwittingly misled the House, but I believe that the House has been misled. Although the hour is late and although hon. Members want to get away for their Summer Recess, I believe that the Minister must make the Italian position absolutely clear.
The hon. Gentleman cannot accept a situation in which Mr. Davignon can tell hon. Members that Italy has been given concessions, whereas he has told the House that it has not. Before the debate is over, or before the House rises for the recess, I hope that we shall be given absolutely accurate information, because this is a serious matter. If exemptions can be given to Italy, which has lower levels of unemployment than we are currently experiencing in South Yorkshire, the Minister has a great deal of explaining to do.

Mr. Tebbit: Before the hon. Gentleman gets unduly excited and does himself an injury so shortly before the recess, I must point out that Vice-President Davignon, and not I, is responsible for what he says. It is perfectly clear—the hon. Gentleman has to take the trouble to read the documents—that no concession in these arrangements excludes Italy from their provisions.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister may think that that is a satisfactory response, but, whether it is in the documents or not, the fact remains that the Italians have the impression that these arrangements do not apply to them, and Count Davignon has justified them having that impression. It is scarcely satisfactory when seemingly the Minister avidly embraces the idea that British steel capacity must be cut back even further.
It is no good the Minister looking pained. This is an important matter for thousands of people in the British steel industry. The fact is that other people in Europe are fully convinced that Britain obeys the rules whereas no one else does. But in obeying those rules, the Minister ensures the destruction of thousands of job opportunities in the Northern and industrial areas, thus bringing hopelessness to many young people and steel communities.
The hon. Gentleman has a responsibility to this country to ensure that the Commissioners are fully aware that we are not prepared to see Britain produce less than 1½ per cent. of the world's steel. That point should command the Minister's attention. It is a matter of enormous importance. Although it is a late hour, I trust that before he goes to bed he will think carefully about what he has said so far.

Mr. Michael Brown: I shall not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) too closely. He has legitimately used this opportunity to have a more general debate on steel matters. I believe that this is an opportunity for hon. Members specifically to concentrate on the implications of these documents. I shall therefore confine my remarks to the impact of the agreement that has been reached in Brussels and hope that there will be another opportunity later in the year to consider the general state of the BSC's progress.
I intend to be a little hard on the European Commission, but I preface my remarks by offering my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Minister of State on the way in which he has represented the British steel industry's case in Europe. I do not envy him his job. It is the one job that I should not wish to have at the present time. It involves the frustrations of contending with a European Commission and a number of other countries that negotiate in dubious ways.
My hon. Friend has managed to bring back a deal which, in the circumstances, no Labour Minister of State could possibly have brought back. The House owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend for what he has done on behalf of the United Kingdom. But—there is always a "but"—next time he is with the Commission he should remember one or two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). There is now in Europe a cartel, and we are part of it. As there is not to be competition between elements of it—by definition, a cartel means no competition—it is in the interests of the cartel that the price of its products should be as high as possible.
I make no criticism of my hon. Friend the Minister or of the British Steel Corporation for seeking to achieve that. I represent a constituency with a vested interest in the cartel's success and in its achieving high prices. Therefore, so long as the cartel exists, I understand and support what my hon. Friend is trying to do. He has the corporation's backing.
A cartel has rules, and it is against the interests of any cartel for one part of it to break the rules. We have an apparent assurance, to judge from the way in which the documents are phrased, that the agreement will apply to all countries in the Community.
Each country is to be responsible for the policing of the observance of the rules set out in the quotas. That is the cause of slight worry. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom Government, because they believe in honouring obligations, will police the rules effectively and efficiently and in the spirit in which they were adopted in Brussels. But I wonder whether the policing will be as strong in some of the other countries. Will it be as strong in Italy as in this country?
There is over-capacity in the whole area covered by the cartel. The proposals made by Mr. MacGregor last year


are being successfully implemented. With those proposals, the United Kingdom has one of the most efficient steel industries in the world. Mr. MacGregor's plan needs to be backed more than it has been so far by the work force. It has given considerable support to the plan, in spite of its early misgivings, but I have the impression from the corporation that the work force has yet to appreciate the full seriousness of the position, though it is beginning to do so.
In spite of all that, there is an efficient BSC on the way, given a fair wind. My hon. Friend said that the chairman was optimistic about the prospects. The plan is optimistic, but there are risks that it may not succeed. We must make sure that we in the United Kingdom do nothing to frustrate its success. That means that the work force must appreciate its obligations.
It would be a travesty of justice if this country, having put its house in order, having produced a steel industry with the prospect of profitability, fell at the final fence because of external pressures from the Community. My fear is that, in spite of the agreements negotiated so successfully by my hon. Friend, there will be a lack of spirit in other countries over implementing the proposals. There is still over-capacity in the whole European steel industry. We have dealt with our over-capacity. Other countries must deal with theirs. The output from that over-capacity must not be dumped in this country under the guise of the Common Market rules that enable other States to get rid of their surpluses.
It must be very frustrating for my hon. Friend the Minister to hear us all getting at him. I feel sure that all hon. Members will recognise that, with his personality and style, my hon. Friend will be in the vanguard of those of us who have misgivings about the way the Community operates. Nevertheless, I hope that he will take on board the genuine misgivings of all hon. Members whose constituencies contain major BSC enterprises. Those hon. Members have seen the emergence of those slimmer and leaner BSC enterprises that have had to shed so much labour and have caused so much distress to their towns. In view of that, it would be a travesty if they had to tolerate the worst consequences of the over-capacity of other States.
I urge my hon. Friend most strongly to bring to bear in the counsels of Europe the great strength of feeling that exists in the British steel industry at the failure of other countries to do what this country has done. I hope that he will reflect there, too, the hope of the BSC that other countries will be encouraged—by the threat of a price war, if the cartel were to break down—to follow our example. I should not like a price war. It would be harmful to the BSC and to our steel industry, as it would be to the European steel industry. That is the sanction that my hon. Friend possesses, however. We all have some aces in our packs. That is the threat that my hon. Friend can hang over his colleagues in Europe, although I do not like the word "colleagues". Some of us would prefer to describe them as enemies.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with great interest. I am not sure how strong a position the BSC would be in, however, to wage a price war when it is still receiving about £600 million a year in taxpayers' subsidy to avoid bankruptcy.

Mr. Brown: I should not like a price war. It would not do the steel industry of this country or that of Europe

generally any good. But I am not prepared, as a steel industry constituency representative, to stand by and see our industry being made ever more efficient compared with the industries of Japan and West Germany and yet still failing at the final fence because the products of other nations' over-capacity find their way to our market.
I recognise that we are in a weak position, and therefore the card of a price war should be used only as a threat. Other countries are in the same position as ourselves, however. We must speak with some strength in the counsels of Europe. I fully recognise the implicit suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) that we do not have much power in the European Commission and that we are in a weak bargaining position, but that is because of the structure of the European Community, of which my hon. Friend is such a sincere and devoted supporter. We must recognise that, however weak our bargaining position, we could always threaten to create havoc in that cartel if it were to be threatened by others in the European Community.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on what he has achieved in the agreement. It gives the BSC a further breathing space for a medium period. But I hope that he will use all his energies at the negotiating table in Europe to urge that the rest of Europe deals with its over-capacity as we have dealt with ours.

Mr. Stan Crowther: The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) has shown a touching faith in the ability of the Minister of State 1:o defend British interests. I am afraid that I do not share the confidence that he has exhibited at considerable length today.
The Select Committee on Trade and Industry was in Brussels at the beginning of this month for intensive discussions with Commissioners Davignon and Andriessen and other senior people from the Commission. I was frankly dismayed to learn how the Commission intended to interpret the document on State aids. We heard about things that were not written into the document and I was left feeling extremely pessimistic about the future of the British steel industry if the Commission was able to do what it proposed. Before this debate, I was not sure whether the Minister of State realised just what he had voted for on 24 June. Having heard him today, however, I am sure that he did. He should be ashamed.
The overriding impression that I gained was that the Commission was obsessed with the notion of cutting capacity. That was its only concern. Efficiency, modernisation and competitiveness with the rest of the world were no longer of any importance. All that it wanted to do was to cut the capacity of the steel industry in Europe.
It also became apparent during the discussions that the Commission had done no real homework to establish what the capacity should be. It had not the faintest idea what the demand for European steel would be in 1985. What is more, it did not even know the true capacity of the industry today.
Anybody who intends to carry out a capacity cutting exercise in a sensible and rational way must know, first, how much there is now and, secondly, how much will be needed in the future. The Commission knows neither. Indeed, it was noticeable that the Minister of State mentioned no capacity figures in his speech. I do not


believe that he knows, either, what the present capacity of the European steel industry is or what the demand will be in 1985. It makes no sense to go thrashing around closing down capacity all over the place without having any kind of target in mind.
The first manifestation of this blind and unreasoning commitment to cutting capacity came when Commissioner Davignon confirmed press reports about the Commission not having decided whether to approve the British Government's proposals to put into the British Steel Corporation the £730 million to which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred. I thought that Commissioner Davignon referred to about £200 million, but a much larger figure was mentioned today. Whichever is the correct figure, however, it is a disgraceful spectacle for unelected and unaccountable people to sit in Brussels and decide whether to allow the British Government to spend British taxpayers' money on the British steel industry. Yet that is the position in which we now find ourselves. The Commission made it clear that it was not satisfied that the present plans for the BSC would result in a sufficient drop in capacity to allow the British Government to put in that amount of British taxpayers' money.
When I pointed out that the BSC board, the Department of Industry and the Select Committee on Trade and Industry had all, after careful examination, decided that the Government's financial restructuring proposals were vital to the survival of the BSC, the reply was simply that that was not the Commission's concern. It is not interested in the British industry. It is looking only at the European picture. It became crystal clear at that point that if Mr. MacGregor had proposed to close every BSC plant in Britain the Commission would jump for joy.
We were told of specific ways in which the Commission would use its financial power to bring about capacity reductions. The readaptation benefits scheme has been used in the past to top up redundancy pay and to finance early retirement and retraining schemes, but it was made clear that under the new regime such money would be available only when redundancies were associated with reducing capacity.
Not long ago there was commissioned at the Rotherham works a new continuous billet caster. It was a splendid technological advance, but unfortunately it resulted in about 500 redundancies. I understand that the BSC plans to install continuous casting at Stocksbridge and Scunthorpe. That will inevitably mean redundancies, but, because it will not mean reducing capacity, men who lose their jobs will not benefit from Treaty of Paris money.
That is a good example of how efficiency and modernisation are being penalised and discouraged. If a clapped-out plant is closed, the money will be available.
Steel will be the only industry excluded from benefiting under the normal criteria of the regional policy of any member State. The Commissioner justified that by saying that a regional grant for a development in an assisted area might increase capacity and that, even if it did not, it would give an enterprise in an assisted area an advantage over an enterprise in a non-assisted area. But that is precisely what regional policy is about.

Dr. John Cunningham: It could also increase efficiency.

Mr. Crowther: Indeed it could. This is not merely an attack on the steel industry but an attack on the whole concept of regional policy.
Perhaps the British steel industry could learn to live with that if the phasing out of State aids were being done even-handedly. The Select Committee on Industry and Trade drew attention to that matter in its report on the BSC corporate plan. We said of the phasing out of State aids:
This policy if carried through completely would be advantageous to the United Kingdom steel industry and probably to the advantage of the industries of the other Community members also. But the great danger is that, while direct subsidies may be abolished, indirect subsidies (eg cheap coking coal, transport) may be allowed to continue. We strongly recommend that in any negotiations for a new regime HMG, mindful of this danger, should press for the total elimination of all subsidies, indirect as well as direct.
That has been disregarded by the Minister of State and, presumably, by his colleagues in the Council of Ministers. We were told in Brussels that indirect subsidies would not be phased out. The danger to which the Committee drew attention is upon us. It would be wrong to suggest that the indirect subsidies are anything but significant. The British Iron and Steel Consumers Council quoted in evidence to the Select Committee the Commission's estimate that the value of coking coal subsidies to the West German steel industry in 1979 was £386 million and that the figure for the United Kingdom was £8 million.
Another memorandum of evidence that the Committee received from an authoritative body suggested that the value to the German steel industry of State support to the railways in 1978 was £360 million—equal to £9 per tonne of crude steel. The corresponding figures for Belgium were £50 million, equal to £4 per tonne, and for France £70 million, equal to £3 per tonne. There is no corresponding figure for the United Kingdom, because there is no subsidy for rail freight transport. The British Iron and Steel Consumers Council evidence concluded:
Whether. one looks at rail freight, coking coal, electricity, gas or oil, it appears that United Kingdom steel producers have been at a cost competitive disadvantage against Continental producers as a result of differing Government policies.
Yet the Commissioner has made it clear that these indirect subsidies are not to be phased out, so the result of all this must be that the British steel industry, both public and private, will be placed at a serious disadvantage in relation to the competitors in the other parts of Europe under arrangements to which our Minister has agreed.
I have one other short quotation to make from the report of the Select Committee on Industry and Trade. We said:
Whatever happens within the Community, Her Majesty's Government and the Community must ensure that the steel industry in Europe is not at a disadvantage in any markets because subsidies appear in other countries outside the Community.
I should like to know what the Minister has done about that, because the European steel industries are in competition throughout the world with Japan, Korea, Brazil and the United States and many other steel producing countries, some of which will still be receiving subsidies after 1985.
The question of energy costs is extremely important. The British steel industry is already at a severe disadvantage because our Government charge a high tax on fuel oil injected into the blast furnaces—twice as high as the next highest in Europe. Yet in Holland and Germany, although the tax in any case is very much lower, it is rebated in the case of blast furnaces because it is regarded as a chemical feedstock.
The NEDC task force report on energy costs earlier this year—I am sure that the Minister is familiar with it—shows that the energy-intensive industries in Britain, of which steel is one, are operating at a considerable disadvantage. But the Commissioner made it clear to us in Brussels that any steps that may be taken to allow the energy-intensive industries to receive their energy at prices lower than those charged to the generality of industry would not be permitted by the Commission in the case of the steel industry. In the case of other industries that would be all right, but not for steel.
It is patently obvious from all these things that the measures to which the Minister of State agreed at the Brussels meeting on 24 June can only have a disastrous effect on the British steel industry, both public and private. It is now clear that the Minister understood what he was voting for, and I can only say that he has grossly betrayed a vital British industry.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The debate has been full of fascinating cross-currents. I disagreed with almost everything that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) said, but he was right to draw attention to the fact that we are not living in an enclosed vessel and that the European steel industry has to face intense competition in third markets. It will be of no avail to protect the European steel industry if it finds itself priced out of the markets in the rest of the world. It was of particular interest to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) arguing in favour of a free-for-all. I wonder whether he would extend this principle also to the fishing industry.
In this matter I find myself in full support of the trade unions and in full support of what I thought was a very reasonable and balanced speech by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham). In particular, I found myself in support of the general secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, Mr. Bill Sirs, who wrote to the Prime Minister saying that the adoption of mandatory production quotas would help European steel industries to survive.
I am also aware that it will have a greater effect on helping the British steel industry in the immediate future. That is why we would request that the Government give every ounce of support to this measure.
The same line was taken by Mr. Joe Gormley, on behalf of the National Union of Mineworkers. He wrote to the Prime Minister and said:
We fully believe that the Davignon proposals will assist the British steel industry and consequently have a beneficial effect to related industries. I believe it crucial that Her Majesty's Government should fully support the proposals and would request that you vote accordingly at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers.
Like hon. Members, Mr. Gormley regards the maintenance of a British coal industry as a primary British interest. Although we would all like our coal to be produced at prices that are competitive with the rest of the world, we must accept that we face particular difficulties. It is common ground between the parties that the British coal industry requires a measure of protection. That measure of protection can be most effectively applied on a European scale. That is why I have no hesitation in supporting these measures, which are the logical conclusion of the Davignon proposals. They have not been as fully effective as we should have liked them to be, but

they are a step in the right direction. Those of my hon. Friends who constantly seek to belittle and ridicule them might pause to consider what they want. Do they want measures that are flouted by every nation that cares to disregard them in pursuit of a temporary national advantage, or measures that are effectively policed? That contradiction lies at the core of every argument that those hon. Friends put forward in such a debate.
I should like to emphasise the point that I made briefly in an earlier intervention. The steel stockholders are angry about the figure of 12,000 tonnes, which is the cut-off point for requiring the publication of pricing. They consider that proposal to be little short of disastrous. I am not sure that they have always expressed themselves well. The letter that they wrote stating their case seemed to be badly drafted. However, there is no mistaking the fact that they feel great anxiety and anger. I beg my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to pay that close attention.
This debate has been remarkable for the dog that did not bark in the night. We have heard no criticism from the Opposition of Mr. Ian MacGregor. I recollect that Mr. MacGregor's appointment was ridiculed by the Labour Party. It wanted to know what a geriatric Yank was doing, coming to Britain at enormous expense to complete the liquidation of the BSC. That is not the reaction found among those employed in the BSC.

Dr. John Cunningham: We have not discussed Mr. MacGregor because the debate is about EEC steel documents. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman's remarks are not valid. We attacked the manner and nature of the appointment, not the man or his record. That is the fact of the matter.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The manner of Mr. MacGregor's appointment may have been necessary in order to get such an outstanding man to run the BSC. If Labour Members have any doubts about the matter, they need only talk to any of the BSC's employees.
Since Mr. MacGregor took over, the transformation in morale and outlook has been little short of staggering. The only plant that I have direct experience of is Llanwern, where the transformation has been unbelievable. It has been transformed from a plant that was a byword for bad labour relations, a constant inability to meet targets and general bloody-mindedness into one of the world's most efficient steel producers. That is almost entirely due to the transformation in climate brought about by Mr. MacGregor. He has done that in an astonishingly brief space of time. Since nothing had so far been said about that, I felt it right to make the point.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The speeches from the Government Benches, although by the nature of the debate few, have been interesting. Two hon. Gentlemen are obviously acutely unhappy about the documents and about the possible consequences that may flow from them.
The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) is clearly so fanatical about Europe that anything that emanates from Brussels is automatically regarded as holy writ. Therefore, I am not surprised at his comments.
We are discussing a matter of fundamental importance to the British steel industry—that is, its future capacity. That is the key issue. The British Steel Corporation is an


enterprise which in its most recent year, despite the denigration, attacks and criticism, has produced real wealth to the tune of £3,000 million-worth of products sold not only in the home market but abroad, enhancing the real wealth of the country and under economic conditions as appalling as one could imagine.
The steel industry is struggling desperately to claw its way out of the trough of 1980 and is having success in some directions. Its production in June was 35 per cent. up on the average production for the second half of 1980. That is still only three-qaurters of the production for 1979, but it is moving gradually in the right direction.
We must recognise that over the past few years the industry, with its skilled manpower and management and with the help of the taxpayer, has built up enormously valuable modern assets. It has tremendous productive capacity now and is beginning to exploit that, despite all the appalling difficulties of the Government's economic mismanagement and the difficulties in home and overseas markets. One could mention one or two plants within British Steel. There is a stainless plant in Sheffield. I quote a recent report on it which says:
Since Christmas the department has shattered eight production records—and according to the section manager … they could better this in the very near future. We broke the record for the 13-shift production three times in one month, the record for 15 shifts four times in three months, and the record for 17 shifts once during the six months … Currently we are looking to topple the 4,000 tonne barrier on 15 shifts, although our ultimate aim is to smash the 18-shift record in 15 shifts—and at the moment this looks quite possible' .
The River Don works, which some people thought would be written off not long ago, is now securing important orders abroad and last month PPE news reported that the River Don works had received a pat on the back from a Canadian customer who thanked the works for the prompt delivery of a number of pressure vessels. To prove that this delivery performance was not a flash in the pan, the works has delivered two pressure vessels to an Australian customer months ahead of the original delivery schedule.
I am glad to read that there is to be a £1·4 million investment in the plant and equipment in River Don to help the workers to do even better. The Brimsworth strip mill, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), is beginning to recapture not only some of the market that it had lost at home but markets abroad as well.
In Stocksbridge we have the very important vacuum arc degassing plant with continuous casting capability which is a £27 million investment which will enhance capacity and competitveness from that plant. I believe that there is a similar sort of investment due at Scunthorpe.
Those are typical of the terrific investment programmes that have been made and there have been comparable investments in the private sector as well as the public sector in the British steel industry over the past few years.
We are told repeatedly by Government Members that the taxpayer has poured into the steel industry in the last five years between £4 billion and £5 billion in public money. They talk as if stacks of pound notes had been pushed into a furnace and burnt away to no purpose. The major part of that money is there for the taxpayer to examine in the form of new equipment, new blast furnaces, continuous casting plant and other plants such as

the great stainless steel works in Sheffield, which is capable of competing with any other steelmakers in the world whether they are Japanese, American, German, Austrian, Swedish, French or Italian.
Given the right economic climate and management, which we have lacked for the past two years, we should have seen the full flowering and full dividend of that investment in terms of the flow of steel.
It is clear that it would be sheer madness to throw that investment away. It would be idiocy to cut further the capacity of the BSC, a great public corporation, to produce by the most modern equipment and methods created by this huge public investment. We are profoundly concerned that the so-called plan has as its primary design the destruction or serious curtailment of the tremendous capacity that we have built up with so much effort at the cost of so much.
The fears are shared by the men who work in the industry. The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) said that the steel and coal workers are passionate enthusiasts for the Davignon plan. Mr. Bill Sirs is quoted as saying something which does not sound quite like that. He said:
UK steel consumption used to average 23 million tonnes until 1978. The rate of consumption at present is about 13 million tonnes a year. When the pick-up comes, God help us, because we will see the biggest avalanche of imported steel that has ever reached the country, while tens of thousands of steel men are now unemployed and walking the streets.
Of course he is right. But, of course, the grotesque mismanagement of the economy over the past two years has produced a slump and a lack of demand.

Mr. John H. Osborn: What about the previous three years?

Mr. Hooley: The hon. Gentleman has a colossal nerve to interrupt with such a comment when he knows that in Sheffield alone unemployment since this Government took office has risen from 13,000 to 34,000. That has happened within two years, and he has the cheek to suggest that there is no economic mismanagement in that. He should go back to his constituency in Sheffield and explain what he thinks of that record.
I return to the question of steel. The steel workers are profoundly concerned that when we have an economic upturn—even this Government cannot manage a permanent slump—we shall be in danger of not having the steel capacity to satisfy the home demand, much less to give us an edge in international markets.
Reference has been made to capacity in the other European countries. According to a parliamentary answer I received recently, French capacity at the beginning of 1980—that is admittedly some time ago and the figure may since have slumped—was 30 million tonnes, German capacity 68 million tonnes, Italian 37 million tonnes and the United Kingdom's 25 million tonnes. One sees how disastrously we have slipped down the European league. Spain and countries outside the European Comunity are not included.
There are problems in the special steels area. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) has already asked about the Government's intentions in response to the Warner report. The report shows that imports of special steels take 55 per cent. of the United Kingdom market against 25 per cent. five years ago and 5 per cent. 10 years ago. In that time, employment in special steels has come down from 18,000 to 3,500,


mostly in the Sheffield and Rotherham areas. Output was down from 70,000 tonnes to about 15,000 or 20,000 tonnes this year. There is clearly a serious problem that needs to be tackled. It cannot be tackled by massacring capacity even more than has occurred so far.
It is crucial for the Minister to say whether aid covers only direct aid to steel through the financing of deficits whether they occur in the public or the private sector. The private sector enjoys subsidies in aggregate on a far greater scale than the public sector. The key factor concerns the subsidies given to coal and transport industries in other EEC member countries.
One also has to ask whether the penalties imposed by the Government in this country on the gas and electricity industries will be taken into account when the effect of various aids on the steel industry in different countries is calculated. It would be preposterous if the Commission told the British Government that in 1981–82, 1982–83 or 1983–84 there was no question of offering any subvention, even should this be necessary, to the British Steel Corporation, Hadfields or anyone else when the world knew that subsidies to coal in West Germany or France were running 12 or 15 times above the level of the subsidy to the coal industry in this country.
If the Minister does not believe what I say, I refer him to the Select Committee that investigated industrial energy pricing policy. The subsidy per tonne for the calendar year 1980 was £15·18 in France, £12·18 in Germany and £1·36 in the United Kingdom. If that kind of subsidy is not included in the calculation when the Commission considers aid for the steel industry, it will make a mockery of any fair comparison between different industries in the member States.
There may be a case for some sensible attempt to plan the steel industries within the member countries. In present circumstances, given the disparities that exist in the ways the industries have developed or declined in France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and Spain, it would be monstrous for the Government or any British Government to countenance the slightest reduction in steel-making capacity in the United Kingdom.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Approaching 1.30 am is not the ideal time to make a speech about the steel industry of Sheffield or even, following the speeches tonight, about our relationship with competitors within the EEC and the initiatives that the Minister has taken with the Commission in Brussels.
This week I attended a sober meeting of Sheffield chamber of commerce. Managements from all quarters of Sheffield reported on some of their difficulties. Labour Members have outlined the impact that the situation has had on employment. The difficulties of management have been great, for a variety of reasons. Sheffield Members have done their best to enable industries to keep going in the city.
The Sheffield Industrial Advisory Committee, of which the hon. Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) are active members, along with city councillors and industrialists, has had to watch contraction in the city.
There has been reference to the vast quantities of steel that are coming in from other countries and ending up in Sheffield and Birmingham. My hon. Friend the Minister

of State has received a deputation on that very issue. It has been suggested that the steel is being dumped, but that has always been difficult to prove. It has been as difficult to prove to the present Government as it has to the Commission. As a citizen and as an observer, I have been immensely disappointed by the response to the energy problem. The problem is a challenge to Ministers. We thought that as we developed our oil and gas reserves, and because we had coal, we would inevitably have the cheapest energy in Europe for our high-energy-consuming industries. That has not been so. Our coal and electricity strategy has been such that our coal-fired power stations are producing electricity that is more expensive than that produced anywhere else in Europe. If Sweden—this applies to some extent to France—has nearly half of its electricity produced from hydro sources and the other half from nuclear sources, it is at an advantage when it competes industrially with Britain. This is a problem for the Secretary of State for Energy. We cannot reverse decisions that have been developed by successive Governments over 25 years.
I have no hesitation in backing the Minister of State and the Government. That decision is based on several years in the European Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) has been with me on many committees. We have met Davignon and heads of industry, some from the BSC and some from elsewhere. When we have felt that Eurofer has needed the backing of the Commission, that has been granted. Perhaps the inability of competitors to come together has been helped by the support of the Commission. The tragedy is that there is an excess of capacity in bulk steel, special steels and other steels in the Community. World demand may pick up. We hope that it will. We are now in a buyer's market and not a seller's market.
In the 1950s Britain had productive capacity and there was a seller's market. One of the tragedies, perhaps, is that Sheffield took advantage of that market. Those were the good days for Sheffield. There were other areas that did not have the manufacturing capacity. There was at that time the Iron and Steel Board and other mechanisms for fixing prices. There was still a seller's market in 1957. That was a time when the producer took advantage of his opportunity. In 1957 there was the restrictive trade practices legislation and in 1964 there was resale price maintenance. The need for this was more relevant to other areas of industry than to steel.
This country is now witnessing a repetition of what happened 50 years ago. I am old enough to remember what I was told as a young boy. In the 1920s and the 1930s we saw those wanting to buy steel hawking their orders around steelworks, and he who was foolish enough to take on an order at a low price was given the order. At the end of the day, however, he could hardly keep his business going. That is why the trade association which publicised prices developed—and perhaps the cartel elsewhere in Europe, and subsequently in the Community. I have mentioned this matter on previous occasions in the House, because in my earlier industrial days I was aware of what happened to Sheffield.
Today, the producer is in a buyers' market. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) talked about a price war. With the British Steel Corporation, there is the question of the State subsidy. That involves the EEC. We know about that. However, private steel companies are concerned. It is possible that


the steel masters of Sheffield, whether they were forging, melting, rolling or casting, made a mistake in the 1930s in taking on orders at any price.
I hope that Opposition Members will think twice about their amendment, which
declines to accept further reductions in steel manufacturing capacity.
The one thing that we cannot stop is a reduction in capacity, either collectively in Europe or individually in one city, if the orders are not there. If that is happening, an ordered rationalisation of prices, quotas and State aids seems to be necessary. In Europe it is vital to have someone holding the rein. That is why I have been sent by representatives of the steel industry to encourage the Minister of State to reach an agreement with our competitors so that we do this in an orderly fashion, rather than in a disorderly fashion, throughout the Community.
I could say much more on this subject, but it is important that we give the Minister of State, the Secretary of State for Industry and other Ministers our backing to deal with these problems rationally and to call on our colleagues in the European Parliament to approach them rationally. I saw the report that was produced by the MEPs in connection with the documents that the House is scrutinising tonight. It contained an appeal to all of us to look rationally at the difficulties that face us in the Community. I therefore hope that we can work together positively and give the Minister of State the support that he needs tonight.

Mr. Tom Normanton: In view of the late hour, I shall not keep the House longer than it takes to make three points. The first is an expression of view. Then I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to give certain assurances.
First, I endorse strongly the views already expressed, although perhaps inadequately, on the courageous and realistic approach that has been adopted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in introducing this important debate. It was an example of the way in which increasingly we are recognising the problems which we face throughout industrialised Europe. The difficulties and problems which we share can be resolved only by a common approach to them. In his approach my hon. Friend shows that he accepts that fact of life, and I strongly endorse and support that approach.
There are two matters on which I should like to know the Minister's reaction. I am somewhat concerned to ensure that at the end of this debate and at the end of this year we can look back and see that the whole of the British steel industry, both private and State, has been treated with a degree of equal-handedness and not find that one sector, the private sector, is at the sticky end of the exercise. I hope that my hon. Friend will give the House that assurance.
Is the Minister really convinced that the representatives of the whole of the steel industry of Britain are playing an effective role in the institutions of which they are members—for example, the European Steel and Coal community and Eurofer? It is no good the House asking a Minister of a Government of either party to be the sole mouthpiece on behalf of industry. Industry itself has a vital part to play. The institutions are there, and industry must

play its part. Our Continental competitors have been playing their role for as long as the European Community has existed. We must learn to play our part as well if not better than, the Continentals. If we fail to face the challenges, no Government action on its own can insulate any sector of British industry from the stark necessity to be competitive in a rough and hard world.

Mr. Tebbit: This is an awful time at which to be debating these matters. It has been a public holiday outside the House for an hour and a half already. I hope that we shall shortly enjoy it.
If the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) had been in my position during the past few months in attempting to negotiate the agreement, they would have come out with a similar agreement. It was inevitable that we should move in this direction. I have no doubt that had the hon. Gentleman and right hon. Gentleman been doing my job in the negotiations they would have fought as toughly as I did for the British steel industry. They would have been subjected to exactly the same pressures as we were.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven referred to the problem of the quota for hot rolled coil. It is remarkable that when it was discovered that the Commission's quota for the derivative products of hot rolled coil was larger than could be met by the Eurofer agreement for the limitation of British Steel's production of hot rolled coil, it was possible to find a way out of the difficulty. It was an immensely complicated problem to decide how the difficulty had originally arisen. It says much for the good will of those concerned that an agreement that can be lived with has been found. It will last us only for the third quarter, but I am confident that with the same degree of good will we shall reach a settlement for future quarters. The problem arose not in the negotiations in the Council of Ministers but in the negotiations between the industries, during which it was the BSC, not I, that made the running.
The hon. Gentleman made other points that I shall cover when dealing with points raised by other hon. Members. He complained about the import of foreign steel baths. He must admit that that is not due to a lack of demand for steel baths. It is the very reverse. It is due, once again, to a poor and uncompetitive supply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred to the economics of a collective farm and asked whether that was acceptable. I find a great deal of it highly unpalatable, but if my hon. Friend has a better way out of the problems I should be grateful if, as he did not offer a way out tonight, he would jot it down on a sheet of notepaper and send it to me and my colleagues in Europe immediately, as many of us are not Socialists and do not like this system. However, we must accept it as the only way out. If my hon. Friend has a better system, I look forward to hearing about it from him.
I believe that my hon. Friend was more concerned with the theology of the Community than with the difficulties that face us in the steel industry. However, I can assure him of one thing at any rate that will please him. Nothing of what we have done, and nothing that is in the Treaties, in any way restricts the right of my hon. Friend to go out tomorrow, or even today, and start a steelworks, produce


steel and export it. There is no restriction on him at all until the moment when he begins to ask for public subsidies. That is when the problems will arise for him.
That is something that we all must bear in mind. We all must bear in mind that the problems have arisen through providing a subsidy. Measures are being taken to eliminate that subsidy so that we can get back to the free market economy which my hon. Friend and I wish to reach. I have an idea of how to do it.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) became a little over-excited about some of these matters. It is not for us to complain too loudly about those wicked foreigners who export things at a loss and sell things below the cost of production. It is just conceivable that if we do so others might hear the sound of the smashing glass in our own glasshouse. The hon. Member was a little over-excited about imports from a list of countries, with every one of which we have voluntary restraint arrangements. They are not unrestricted in the way that he tried to imply.
The hon. Member was right to refer to the long and sad history of decline in the steel industry. It is too late at night to go into the causes of that. The hon. Member should show himself capable of a little more understanding of the fact that the requirement to sell steel to car manufacturers has with it a requirement to produce cars, which has a requirement to sell them, which has a requirement to please the customers, who might prefer the cars that someone else makes, unless we do the job extremely well.

Mr. Hardy: The point that I was making—perhaps I did not make it clearly—was that one of the principal reasons for our failure is an inadequacy of investment over a long period. I had hoped that the Minister would accept that it is necessary for public and private investment to be maintained so that the industrial base of this country can be secured and we shall then continue to need the steel industry.

Mr. Tebbit: I must refer the hon. Gentleman for his reply to a little of what his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) said. I was extremely glad to hear what he said about the success of the Government's policy for the steel industry in bringing about hitherto unknown peaks of efficiency and success in improving productivity and output. He paid tribute to the workers and the management of many steelworks. He made the point in a most eloquent fashion. I am extremely grateful to him, because it is a point that I frequently make myself. It provides the answer to those who believe that all that is necessary is more investment and that we could not have made better use of the investment that we already have. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Heeley for his support.
There was considerable interest in the cost and price of coal and coke. The cost of mining suitable coal in the United Kingdom is lower than in Germany, although, as everyone connected with the industry knows, we have quality problems. The German coal subsidy per tonne is higher than the United Kingdom coal subsidy to the NCB and brings German coal prices down to the world level. However, the BSC has the freedom to import, which German steel producers do not. The NCB, using finance from the Government, has been selling coal to the BSC at prices that are also competitive with world prices. Therefore, broadly speaking, both the German and United Kingdom industries receive their coal on similar terms.
I do not know whether any hon. Member has in mind the size of the external financing limit for either the NCB or British Railways, but I counsel Labour Members not to go on quite so much about the subsidies that go to German railways on coal mines. We do just a little bit of subsidising ourselves, and it is unwise to suggest that only the Germans do it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) raised a number of points. I assure him that the cartel that is being formed is only an interim solution and that the long-term solution is the ending of subsidy. The pricing measures of the cartel are much more difficult to police—prices are particularly difficult and production less so—but we shall try to keep the Commission up to its job.

Dr. John Cunningham: In doing his job—we accept that it is a hard one—and in keeping the Commission up to its job in this series of agreements, will the hon. Gentleman say why the Government would not find it advantageous to have a decision of the House on the record in support of our amendment to make the Commission face its responsibilities, or are the Government willing to accept further reductions and closures in the British steel industry?

Mr. Tebbit: I shall come to that in a moment. The policing of the measures is the responsibility of the Commission, which has a comprehensive monitoring system, a trained inspectorate and the power to levy fines. It is only the application of the pricing rules to distributors that will be the responsibility of member States after 1 July 1982. I hope that that helps my hon. Friends and others who raised the point.
The National Association of Steel Stockholders has been invited to a meeting with Commission officials on 30 July. The Commission is already well aware of our feelings about these matters, and I hope that they will be able to come to a suitable agreement.
Even at this time of night, I shall not trouble the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) with the figures for Community crude steel production or capacity figures for the industry. I cannot tell him what production will be in 1985, and I do not believe that anyone else can.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) said, one of the problems this evening has been to decide whether some of the critics want the policing measures to be effective. If they are not effective, they denounce them. They have a problem in that regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) was right to pin the problem of energy costs on the coal-fired power stations in this country, and I shall not go further than that. He was right also to remind us of the horrors of the late 1920s and 1930s, which also led to the formation of cartels.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) that I am satisfied that we have been fair as between the private and the public sectors. I believe that the representatives of the whole industry are being effective in the institutions but that they could be more effective.
On the question of production levels, I repeat that I have no doubt that there will be no requirement for a cut in capacity below 13·9 million tonnes of crude steel output or 14·4 million tonnes of liquid as a condition of clearing the current financial year's funding. Beyond that, we shall


discuss, alongside a number of other countries, our programmes for the recovery of our steel industry throughout Europe.
It is right to emphasise, as the hon. Member for Whitehaven and the right hon. Member for Salford, West did, that we have cut our capacity more than anyone else in Europe. We have contributed more to the resolution of the problem. I can give no guarantee that the problem may not become worse, or that BSC's performance may not become worse, but I remind the House that after 1985, as these measures end, there will be no restriction whatsoever on unsubsidised steel undertakings expanding their output to any extent that they wish. That is the challenge for the BSC.
I have no hesitation in recommending the documents to the House. I have the greatest sympathy for the spirit of the amendment, but I do not believe that it is within human power to give the guarantee that it asks for.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7305/81 and 7847/81 on production quotas for steel, No. 7306/81 on state aids to the steel industry and No. 7825/81 on pricing rules for steel distributors; and welcomes the agreement reached in the Council of Ministers on 24th June as being in the interests of the steel industry.

Orders of the Day — Midland Link Motorways

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I have no doubt that the staff of the House will be pleased to see that we have reached the Adjournment on this public holiday.
I wish briefly to raise some of the repair problems of the Midland link motorways, dealing in the main with two issues. The first is the Atkins report on the bearings, which is one of the key problems of the whole structure. I was going to concentrate on the Atkins "final report" of January this year, a copy of which I have had for some weeks, but I shall instead—because of the actions of the Department of Transport last Friday—highlight some of the changes made in the version that the Department saw fit to publish last week and that the media have simply swallowed whole.
My second point concerns the more immediate problems of the tenders for the bearing repairs, about which I wrote to the Minister last Friday and which were referred to in the article in The Sunday Times written by the journalist John Coates.
The report presented by Atkins and Partners in January stated on page 3 that Atkins and Partners had proceeded along the lines of its brief and
duly presented an interim report before Christmas 1980. This was discussed with the West Midlands County Council on 15th January 1981. Investigations since have proceeded in more detail and this final report describes these findings and covers all the work carried out to date.
The report published last Friday stated on page 4 that Atkins and Partners had proceeded along these lines and had duly presented an interim report before Christmas 1980. This was discussed with the West Midlands county council on 15 January 1981. Investigations then proceeded in more detail, and a provisional report describing these findings and covering all the work carried out to that date was presented at the end of January 1981. So we now have the final report of January 1981 referred to as the provisional report in the new version published in July.
Friday's report, which by any means is certainly a laundered version of the previous report, went on to say on page 4 about its own publication:
Additionally it was thought desirable to be able to publish this report to allay public fears and to this end it has been edited to omit certain confidential commercial information and other statements directly attributable to third parties.
That, I maintain, is a grossly misleading statement. Anyone with both versions of the report can see that that is the case. I shall give four examples.
The first concerns the fact that on page 13 of the laundered version, which was published last week, in the report of discussions with original consultants—and there is no secret of the fact that the original consultants on the Midland link viaduct motorway were Sir Owen Williams and Partners—there is a reference to a visit under a slip road at Gravelly Hill—better known as Spaghetti Junction—as follows:
The concrete crossbeams were in particularly poor condition here.
In the real Atkins report of January this year, however, the sentence is as follows:
The concrete crossbeams were in particularly poor condition here but this was due to faulty workmanship originally.


That is quite clearly stated in appendix B, which is not in the laundered version, on sheet 3 on the history notes about a meeting on 9 December 1980 at the Birmingham office of Sir Owen Williams and Partners. This is not simply omitting the attribution of what is said but is altering what was said. And that runs counter to what was said in the report published last week.
My second example is that on page 17 of the laundered version in the report of discussions with the other current principal inspection consultants—there are four groups of consultants—there is the following statement:
At Gravelly Hill the bearings were in a poor state—the Consultants generally could not confirm that any mortar was in place centrally under the base-plates".
In the real Atkins report the same sentence reads:
At Gravelly Hill the bearings were in a poor state—Maunsells generally had no confidence that any mortar was in place centrally under the base-plates".
This again is in appendix B of the history note of a telephone discussion of 11 December 1980.
If only the name of the consultants had been left out there might not be too much to argue about. But when
had no confide rice that any mortar was in place
becomes
could not confirm that any mortar was in place
between the two versions there is cause for people to worry. The report has been rewritten in a way that is not clearly stated in the quotation I have made.
The third example concerns the opening paragraph of the report's conclusions. This, again, is facelifted, to say the least. In January the report began on page 87:
The structural damage so far noted on the viaducts".
In July the report began on page 95:
The limited structural damage so far noted on the viaducts".
Were Atkins and Partners happy to have to rewrite their report with this kind of doctoring? I suspect that they were not.
The fourth example concerns the paragraph I have just mentioned—the opening paragraph of the conclusions. I wish, even given the short time available, to try to put both paragraphs on record. In the January report, paragraph 1 of the conclusions and recommendations reads as follows:
The structural damage so far noted on the viaducts can in general be reasonably attributed to the bedding failures. The mortar beddings could have failed from either poor workmanship originally, heavy loadings due to bearing friction or a combination of both factors. If one considers that, for example, Bromford Viaduct, with its reportedly good workmanship has survived since construction with beddings generally still in a good state, whereas Gravelly Hill at the other extreme has had many failures which, it is reported, may be largely attributed to bad workmanship, then one is led to believe that the original poor workmanship could be the major failure factor.
In the July version of the Atkins report, the same paragraph reads as follows:
The limited structural damage so far noted on the viaducts can, in general, be reasonably attributed to the bedding failures. The mortar beddings could have failed from either poor workmanship originally, heavy loadings due to bearing friction or a combination of both factors. However, if one considers that one viaduct, with reportedly good workmanship has survived since construction with beddings generally still in a good state, whereas other viaducts have had many failures which, it is reported, may be largely attributed to bad workmanship, then one is led to believe that the original poor workmanship could be the major failure factor.
Simply by the failure to indicate which viaduct had "reportedly good workmanship" and which had had
many failures … largely attributed to bad workmanship",
all the original contractors are tarred with the same brush, as this is comm. on information, whether it be Marples Ridgeway who built Bromford or A. Monk and Co. of

Warrington who built Gravelly Hill. All of them are smeared, as well as other companies to which I shall refer later.
Any serious journalist who wants a full copy of the Atkins report can have one from me, although he will have to contribute towards the cost of photocopying as at 150 pages it is rather expensive to copy.
As the Minister well knows from the press reports of Friday and the weekend, general media analysis of the report published on Friday was impossible. It was two-thirds of the size of the January report and included reports of the jacking tests carried out in May and June. I therefore suspect that general serious media analysis was riot intended to take place in any event.
So far as I am aware, the only confidential commercial information left out of Friday's laundered version of the report, other than some of the details of different hearing manufacturers asked to supply various alternatives which had been detailed in the appendices, is an example which could lead to a possible charge—I put it no higher than that—of collusive tendering between R. M. Douglas Limited and Dabb Chemicals. In the January report, discussions with both, which are not highlighted in last week's report, throw up the same figure at different places and at different times for the bearing replacement. I shall come to that in greater detail in a moment.
The Minister said in his statement last Friday that the recommendation in the report regarding greasing of the sliding surfaces of the bearing faces was being considered. As he knows, the summary on page 2 of last week's report reads:
It is strongly suggested that the bedding replacement contracts should be extended in scope to clean and re-grease the sliding surfaces and that the opportunity be taken to test several alternative insert solutions to gain experience for possible future use should conditions deteriorate.
There are two points there. First, it is strongly suggested that they be included in what I take to be the current contracts which are about to be let. Secondly, we are told that there is a high possibility that we shall need to have several alternatives ready for further deterioration of the Midland link motorways.
Did the current tender documents, which were let four or five weeks ago in mid-June, for the three viaducts at Wigmore, Gravelly Hill and Thornbridge and which I understand were sent out to approximately half a dozen firms for each viaduct actually include this work? The work was suggested in the Atkins report published last week—that must have been with the Minister for some time—and highly recommended in the January report, which must have been in the Minister's hands for a considerable time. I suggest that that information was not included in the tender documents. Will those documents be urgently amended to save the taxpayer money?
The tenders were due to be received by the West Midlands county council, acting as the agents—and therefore usually meant to carry the can for the Department—last Friday at 12 noon. I understand that, unusually, they had not been opened until today. Normally they would have been opened after 12 noon on Friday, with the necessary people being present to check that everything was done properly.
Does the Under-Secretary stand by his answer to me of 29 June? He said:
However, the recommendations from Atkins final report"—
which I presume to be Friday's report—


will be considered before contracts are placed."—[Official Report, 29 June 1981; Vol. 7, c. 309.]
That was in answer to my specific question about whether contracts for the bearing plinths would receive approval before the Department received the Atkins report.
The main change has been the strong recommendation regarding greasing or lubrication of the sliding surfaces. It is ludicrous to have three major contracts to be let, involving millions of pounds of public money, and perhaps later his year or next year to have the work redone, with the bearings opened up to be greased or regreased.
I wish to ask the Under-Secretary a series of questions about the tenders. The invitation to go on the list to tender for the three contracts was made at about Christmas last year, and it was urgent then that the work be carried out.
I understand that, although A. Monk and Co. applied to the West Midlands county council to go on the list, the council refused to place the firm on the list for any of the contracts at Wigmore, Gravelly and Thornbridge. Did Monk's apply to the Department at any time after the county council refused to put the company on its list?
Why did the Department insist during May or June that Monk's be added to the council's list? Were the council's standing orders complied with? Did the highways committee meet and overrule its previous decision on the instructions of the Minister?
Has the Minister received advice from his chief highways engineer, Mr. Sriskandan, on this matter, which is a key issue for the county council? Why has the Department cut the lists for tendering to almost half of the firms originally approved by the county council? The lists for all three contracts were cut by almost half. I have no interest to declare, but why have local companies such as Wrekin and Bilton been excluded? I understand that they have the necessary specialist equipment to carry out the work.
Is it true that W. C. French, who built Wigmore, and Marples Ridgeway, who built Bromford, refused even to apply to go on the lists—even though the construction industry is so short of work?
I repeat the question that I asked the Minister in a letter. Is it right that Monk's, who built Gravelly, and R. M. Douglas, who built the Thornbridge viaduct, should even be invited to tender for what is, in effect, putting right their own poor workmanship, which is highlighted in the Atkins report?
Why was there the delay from Christmas to last Friday? That was a substantial delay and the best months of the year for regrouting work have slipped by. The Minister knows that the work was regarded as important when Mr. Mustow said in a letter last November, which is contained in the first Atkins report, that it was urgent. He said that there was
political pressure to take urgent action
and he re-emphasised the urgency of the work. If it was urgent then, it must be urgent now.
A year ago I complained to the Minister about the unsafe scaffolding left underneath Gravelly Hill—Spaghetti Junction—over the canal, which could be got at by youngsters. He gave me an assurance in a letter last September that this would be taken care of. Two weeks ago I saw youngsters climbing that scaffolding, and I ask what action the Department has taken with regard to the contractors who erected that scaffolding. Someone will

be killed if that scaffolding is not protected so that youngsters are prevented from climbing 60 feet above the canal.
My last point relates to the problems arising in the Atkins report over the same figures being raised by Dabb Chemicals and R. M. Douglas for the same work—replacing the bearings. The figure that emerged is £112. One company was working as a sub-contractor to the other. The Minister wrote to me on 21 July telling me that Dabb Chemicals had the Wilton contract for £80,000 and that Douglas had the Oldbury contract for £215,000, but he did not tell me that Douglas sub-contracted the Oldbury contract to Dabb, which is a small family business. The name stands for Diane and Brian Bliss. It is not a bucket shop and it is not a multinational. I also question whether it is right and proper that firms which have worked in this close proximity and know each other's figures should be put on the same tender list for the now competitive contracts—the tenders which were received last Friday and which have been opened today. I have raised the questions with the Minister in a letter and I do not intend to repeat them here tonight.
Millions of pounds of public money are involved. I know that the Minister is doing his best and I have great respect for the way in which he has tackled the problem in the last two years. But the repairs to the Midland link motorways have become a gravy train for many firms, and we need some assurances about the matter. I know that the Minister will do his best to answer some of the questions tonight and will write to me about the others. We need to have assurances that the public interest is being fully protected on all counts. That assurance is needed more than ever following the report last Friday of the Atkins inquiry on the bearings and the changes made, which were more substantial than I have been able to go into, compared with the report that was made available in its final version in January of this year.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for raising the question of the Midlands link motorways in the Adjournment debate. He has taken a close interest in it for some time and has at last given me the opportunity to answer some of his points.
I once wrote to the hon. Gentleman at an early stage when he raised the matter, asking him what exactly was the point that he was trying to get at in his copious researches on Midlands link motorways. I am still not altogether sure that he knows exactly what he is driving at. He is doing an extraordinary amount of research work into a highly technical and complicated subject and keeps throwing up questions. It is plain from the way in which he puts his questions and the inferences he draws from some of the things he finds that he feels that somewhere some kind of misuse of public funds is taking place, with damage to the public interest, withholding of information and so on. But he is trawling through such a vast amount of material that he never quite gets exactly what it is that he is complaining about. I fear that he is being overwhelmed by the quantity of material available to him.
I have tried to reassure the hon. Gentleman—and I shall try to do so again in the brief time available this


evening—that there really is no underlying sinister activity that I have been able to discover in regard to the Midlands link motorways.
I begin by reaffirming briefly what the Government's policy has been towards the difficult problems that we are having in maintaining this complicated, long series of viaducts on the M6 north of Birmingham. Our aim is basically to find out first what is wrong with the structures. We must then go on to carry out effective repairs as speedily as possible at the lowest overall cost and the minimum inconvenience to road users and others who might be affected by the works. Finally, when we have done that, we intend to examine the case thoroughly and to consider whether compensation can be obtained from any people who may be liable for negligence or in any other way for the costs of the repair.
Throughout the investigation of the Midland links viaducts and the repair work undertaken, the West Midlands county council has acted as the Department's agents. That council therefore shares the responsibility with us for keeping the viaducts in good order and repair. There is not and has not been any conflict between ourselves and our agents, the county council. For as long as the agency agreement continues, it is not possible for there to be any conflict.
The hon. Gentleman will receive a reply from me to one of his parliamentary questions. Recently, I met Councillor Clark, the new chairman of the highways committee of West Midlands county council. In the past he has shared some of the hon. Gentleman's concern about the Midland links viaducts If the hon. Gentleman has any doubts, I invite him to consider the questions that I asked Mr. Clark. I asked him what we had asked its engineers to do that the county council did not want them to do. I asked him what the West Midlands county council's engineers were not doing that it wanted them to do. I explained to Councillor Clark that they were his engineers and that his highway committee was responsible for what they did. I pointed out that if, at any time, he wished to tell me that we were in conflict about what his engineers should do, I should be happy to listen to him. However, as long as he is the agent, his authority is the agent authority. He is in charge of the work and, as long as we are doing things in agreement, his responsibility is equal to that of those of us in the Government.
Meanwhile the county council is acting as our agent. Since 1978, it has been appointing firms of consulting engineers to carry out much of the principal inspection work on the viaducts. I regret the latest county council policy of recruiting large numbers of extra staff to try to do the work rather than employing expert consultants. In the past the council has employed outside consulting engineers. An enormous number of principal inspection reports are being produced. I keep updating the information, but as of today we have received 80 principal inspection reports out of the total of about 130 that we hope to have by the end of this year. Every one of those reports has been made available to the public and to whoever wishes to see them. Several of the journalists producing reports about the Midland links viaducts go to our publicly available reports in order to do research and to produce the information.
Throughout that time we have had one report that was not made available to the public. I refer to the Atkins Report on bearings, which was produced in January 1981. I regret—as do the Government—that the report was not

made public. However, the problem appears to have been solved, because the hon. Gentleman is making an offer to all and sundry and will allow people to have photocopies of the report that he has. That report on the bearings was produced in January 1981. At that stage the question whether we should make the report publicly available was raised. Atkins is a group of consulting engineers. Such people are not usually active in the political arena. When the report was written it was not known that the report would be made publicly available. Therefore, Atkins incorporated certain commercially confidential information and statements that were based on information that had been given by third parties. All those involved in compiling the report did not realise that the report would be publicly available. Therefore, I was satisfied that it would have been unfair to Atkins to release the report. It was right to give Atkins the chance to decide on the type of report that it wished to make available if it was to be publicly answerable for its statements.
It is also right to refer to the report as an interim one. After the January report, which gave the findings until that date, further jacking tests were carried out in order to check the preliminary observations of the bearings and to come to the final conclusions that appeared in the report published last Friday. Copies of the report are now freely available and one copy has today been posted in the Library. It is true that there are differences in the texts of the report of January 1981 and this report. Everyone will happily be able to examine those differences if the hon. Gentleman makes the original report available. I cannot prevent him from doing so.
All the changes have been made by Atkins. There has been no editing or laundering of any report by the Department. Indeed, if anyone in my Department has been party to suggestions that the proposals be laundered, he is acting totally contrary to my instructions.
When this problem arose on the report in January 1981, I thought that the fair thing to do was to make it clear lo Atkins that we wanted a final report from the company which would be publicly available. Any changes in the text that have been made by Atkins have been made in the judgment of Atkins itself to protect its performance. to put forward opinions which the company is happy to defend in public and to reflect further work that has been done on the jacking tests since then.
Straight away we accepted all the recommendations of the Atkins report. We are still considering the possible need for greasing of the bearings as the plinths are replaced. Although at the moment I am dependent for engineering advice, it is likely that our engineers will agree that it is desirable. The tenders that have gone out for the bearing plinth repairs do not contain any provision for greasing, but there is no question of contracts being placed and the work commenced before we have made a final decision about the greasing. Otherwise we should have to repair the plinths and break them open to put the grease in. If we decide to grease, the tenderers will be approached so that there can be a final adjustment to the price for the greasing to be done.
The other questions concern the firms that have been invited to tender for the bearing plinths. Two of the firms, R. M. Douglas Construction Ltd. and Dabb Chemicals Ltd., have been invited to tender for the repair work on the Wigmore and Thornbridge viaducts and have previously worked together, but that does not mean that their prices will not be truly competitive on this occasion. It is by no


means unusual for different contractors sometimes to work together on some work and later to tender separately by work elsewhere or even on the same structures. Our usual practices have been followed in inviting tenders, and that will include clear assurances that the tenders are genuinely competitive with each other.
The other matter that has been raised is that we should not have invited Monk and Douglas to tender for the plinth work because they were involved in work 10 years ago about which there is now doubt. Those firms have done

a great deal of work since. They are substantial firms employing many people. We are major public sector purchasers of contracting work. It cannot be argued that because there is now some question that 10 years ago—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o' clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-two minutes past Two o'clock on Wednesday morning till Thursday 30 July 1981 at half past two o' clock, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 23 July.